January 5, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell , Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska, Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, uns ealing order, and follo wing conferral with Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unseal ed. The filing of these documents ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basi s until completed. This filing also excludes documents pertaining to Does 105 ( see December 28, 2023, Email Correspondence with Chambers), 107, and 110 ( see ECF No. 1319), while the Court’s re view of those documents is ongoing. Respectfully, /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 1EXHIBIT 9 (File Under Seal)Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 1 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 UNCERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT DISCLAIMER IN THE MATTER OF 2 Virginia L. Giuffre v. 3 Ghislaine Maxwell 4 The following transcript of proceedings, or any 5 portion thereof, in the above-entitled matter, taken 6 on any date, is being delivered UNEDITED and 7 UNCERTIFIED by the official court reporter at the 8 request of ordering attorney. 9 This is an unofficial transcript, which should 10 NOT be relied upon for purposes of verbatim citation 11 of testimony. 12 This transcript has not been checked, proofed 13 or corrected. It is a draft transcript, NOT a 14 certified transcript. As such, it may contain 15 computer-generated mistranslations of stenotype code 16 or electronic transmission errors, resulting in 17 inaccurate or nonsensical word combinations, or 18 untranslated stenotype symbols which cannot be 19 deciphered by non-stenotypists. Corrections will be 20 made in the preparation of the certified transcript, 21 resulting in differences in content, page and line 22 numbers, punctuation and formatting. 23 This uncertified unedited transcript contains 24 no appearance page, certificate page, index or 25 certification.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 2 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 START TIME: 8:57 a.m. 2 THE COURT REPORTER: Do you declare under 3 penalty of perjury to tell the truth, the whole 4 truth, and nothing but the truth? 5 THE WITNESS: 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: In the mart /O*F 7 Virginia L Jeffrey verses Ghislaine Maxwell. 8 Today's date June 24, 2016, and time is 9 8:59 a.m. this is videotaped deposition of Tony 10 Figueroa. Counsel please truce /THEFL after 11 which the court reporter will swear in the 12 witness. 13 MR. EDWARDS: Brad adards I represent 14 Virginia Giuffre. And Virginia Giuffre is here 15 with me as well. 16 MS. MENNINGER: Laura manager on behalf of 17 gelen Maxwell, the Defendant. She is not here. 18 (Off the record at 9:01 a.m.). 19 A Yes. 20 MS. MENNINGER: 21 Q Good morning? 22 A Good morning. 23 Q Can you state your full name and spell 24 your last name for the record? 25 A My name is Anthony Lewis Zach FigueroaCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 138 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 /EUFPB 2001? 2 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBLGZ form /TPOUPBLZ. 3 A No. 4 Q How do you know that? 5 A Because she did not have a job anywhere 6 else. 7 Q How frequently during that period of time 8 would she be going over to Jeffrey epistipes house? 9 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form 10 foundation. 11 A When I was with her she would go over 12 there two weeks out of every month. 13 Q And how often what is the frequency you 14 would be the person take her to his house? 15 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBLGZ form /TPOUFRPZ. 16 A Pretty much whenever she was leaving to go 17 on a trip I would drive her there. 18 BY MR. EDWARDS: 19 Q Times when she went therein during the day 20 and came back that night? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And would you be the person that drove her 23 on those occations too? 24 A No. 25 Q She would drive herself on thoseCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 139 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 occasions? 2 A Yeah. 3 Q Were there times when you drove her to the 4 airport, the private airport? 5 A The private airport I picked her up from. 6 I never drove her there. 7 Q Did you see epi/SPAOEPB airplane at the 8 airport? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What did it look like? 11 A Object form. 12 A A big black leer jet I guess it was. I 13 don't know. It was a pretty nice black jet. 14 Q Did you observe Virginia entering or 15 exiting that airplane? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And other than Virginia what other people 18 did you observe entering or exiting that airplane? 19 A I'm pretty sure Jeffrey and Ms. Maxwell 20 were both there. 21 Q Can you tell me the first time that you 22 met Ms. Maxwell. Describe that occasion? 23 A Like I said we were just pretty much I was 24 in the house hang out and she was in the kitchen she 25 was there one of the times I guess. And pretty muchCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 143 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q How many times did you go to Jeffrey 2 epi/STAOEPBZ pool area? 3 A Like three times. 4 Q And on the three occasions that you went 5 to Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ pool area who else was by 6 had pool parea? 7 A I understand nobody like I was liltry just 8 sitting out there by myself waiting for her to get 9 done talking with him. But pretty much everytime I 10 was at that house there was just random girls the 11 chef and Ms. Maxwell. 12 Q At this time in 2000 one your how old are 13 you. What is your date of birth? 14 A March 4th 1982. I'm 34. 15 Q Okay. So in 2001 you about 19? 16 A Yeah. 17 Q When you were at Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ 18 house and by the pool? 19 A Uh-huh. 20 Q I your describing other girls that were in 21 had house did youknow these other hours? 22 A No they were like fraught different 23 countries. 24 Q Hoe did you know they waere from different 25 contries?Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 144 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 A Because whenever they would talk or I 2 would hear them say blah blah or she would tell me 3 this girl was this place and that girl was thaw that 4 place. 5 Q Would could tell from the accent? 6 A Yeah. 7 Q Would you ever talk to these girls? 8 A Not really. I mean sometimes I would. 9 But not like a conversation about asking what they 10 were doing ear. 11 Q At this time 19 years old. Can you tell 12 me what the age range of these girls you describing 13 that are foreign girls at Jeffries house? 14 MS. MENNINGER: Objection form 15 /TPAUFRPBGZ. 16 A They looked about Virginia's age. They 17 all looked about that about 17, 18. But I don't 18 know. I did not ask hem how old they were so I 19 don't know the exact number. 20 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 Q Okay. And when you were in the house by 22 the pool by yourself you said Virginia was just I 23 guess describing one occasion Virginia was just talk 24 to them? 25 A Jeffrey I don't know about what.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 145 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Was Ms. Maxwell the? 2 A I'm not sure I know she was only there 5 3 or six times out of the whole time I was with her 4 that I met her. 5 Q All right. And each of the five or six 6 times that you met Ms. Maxwell do I understand it 7 correctly that it was inside Jeff sephouse? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Each of the 5 or six times that you met 10 Ms. Maxwell inside of Jeffrey's house was your 11 conversation with her always fairly similar stoowhat 12 you described? 13 A Yeah, it was never like I never talked to 14 her as I would like Jeffrey. Like she never set 15 down with me I had a conversation 0 high how you 16 doing blew blew ahow doing and that would be it. 17 Q Okay. 18 Q And when St. The first time you met 19 Jeffrey Epstein in relationship the the first time 20 you met Ms. Maxwell. Meaning did you meet him 21 first. Second? 22 A I met Jeffrey first. 23 Q How did how were you introduced to Jeffrey 24 Epstein? 25 A Just high this is Jeffrey this is Tony,Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 146 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 you know, just casually. 2 Q When is the first time that you were asked 3 by anyone to bring other girls Jeff /AEF 4 epi/STAOEPBZ house? 5 A Pretty much right after she left. When 6 she would go on trips. They would just ask me if I 7 would find like Jeffrey would say when you get back 8 find more girls to have here blue blue this and 9 that. And then after she went to thiland when he 10 was calling me searching for her he would throw that 11 in there randomly do you have any girls. And then 12 where is Virginia at. Like trying to seem like he 13 was trying to get more information about her than 14 anything after she left but make it seem like still 15 wanted me to be around kind of. 16 Q Okay. 17 A But I don't know exactly. 18 Q Okay. So in the beginning? 19 A Uh-huh. 20 Q Of your going over to Jeffrey Epstein 21 house primary it was just you and Virginia? 22 A Yeah,. 23 Q At someintp point in time Virginia starts 24 recruiting other girls to go to the house; is that 25 right?Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 148 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Describe for us what these girls looked 2 like that were being brought to the house? 3 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form found 4 vague time to place. 5 BY MR. EDWARDS: 6 Q Sorry let me prephrase the question during 7 this 2001 period if you were driving Virginia and 8 another girl to the house, what type of girls would 9 you be driving? 10 MS. MENNINGER: Form form foundation. 11 A Pretty much like young looking teenager 12 girls 16, 17, really pretty. 13 Q How did you know that's what was being 14 requested that that age range and that look and? 15 A I just assumed that that's what most guys 16 are into. 17 Q Girls that looked like Virginia? 18 A Yeah. 19 Q When you would bring girls over to the 20 house were you looking for some sort of professional 21 mussuese or massge experience? 22 A Just get friends that I knew from school. 23 Q And that's what Jeffrey wanted? 24 A Yeah. 25 MS. MENNINGER: Object form founds.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 149 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 BY MR. EDWARDS: 2 Q How did you know what Jeffrey wanted? 3 A That's what he asked me. 4 Q What would he ask you? 5 A Ask me to try to find gills a resem 6 believed like somewhat that type. 7 Q And when you would bring these girls that 8 resem believed Virginia or some type would Jeffrey 9 Epstein pay you? 10 A Yes cension form /STKPWHROUPBGZ. 11 Q Would Jeffrey pay you every time? 12 A Ojbection form foundation. 13 A Yes. 14 Q And how much would he pay you foreach girl 15 that you brought to him? 16 A Object form founds. 17 A Two hundred dollars apiece. 18 Q Where would this transaction tace place? 19 A Object to the form. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form 21 /TPOUFRPBLZ the living room. 22 BY MR. EDWARDS: 23 Q And how much money do you think overall 24 Jeffy epistein paid you for bringing girls to him? 25 A Me personal or us together.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 152 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Sure. How how often did Jeffy Epstein ask 2 you to bring girls to the house? 3 A Pretty much as much as possible like he 4 would tell us as men girls we could bring the 5 better, so... 6 Q When you say us who are the us? 7 A Me I Virginia. 8 Q So walking me through an example of that 9 you would go thohouse with Virginia and describe 10 what would happen that ultimately let to this 11 conversation that you just describe would Jeff /AEF 12 Epstein? 13 A Well because /THRAOEU explain that. 14 Q Sure you I Virginia my initial question 15 was I think you initial answer was is as often 16 Jeffrey bring girls to him as muffin as possible as 17 many osto us. Us being you I Virginia. So walk ame 18 through an example go thohouse and then where do you 19 have this discussion where did you have this 20 discussion what words did he use what did he tell 21 you specifically? 22 A Specifically he just said see if you can 23 find firls. It was in the living room. There's a 24 little desk that is where I normally talk to him. He 25 would sit behind the so you have any nor girls youCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 153 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 want to beak in a cupp for nis weekend and like I 2 said pretty much every time I went there if I knew 3 /KPWEBLS I could bring to him I started bring ilto I 4 guessee liked then they would start doing stuff 5 without me so then slowy just fading out, you know. 6 Q Squat this point Jeffrey Epstein in the 7 living room and Virginia to bring other girls? 8 A Uh-huh. 9 Q Was he using the world massage anymore? 10 A No,ee did not say anything like that just 11 is saying to bring them. 12 Q At that stage where this conversation a 13 happening dud you already settle conversation and 14 Virginia you knew what was actually at the house as 15 apoid I'ma masagge therapist? 16 A I'm not positive but I don't doubt it. 17 Q Once you were hin house with Virginia and 18 you were having these conversation with Jeffy 19 Epstein was it obviously to you whata happening that 20 house? 21 A I mean it was obvious to me. Like I said 22 I never witnesses any of the stuff so... 23 Q Of course? 24 Q What would you tell the girls that you 25 would bring to Jeffrey's what the did you del theCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 154 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Jeffries house to get them to the house. 2 A Well I told them that it was for a 3 massage. And I told them obviously that if people 4 when they get massaged I don't know going to expect 5 more from you or not. If he does tell him know it's 6 up to you if you want to go. And they would still 7 do it it. 8 Q How did you know to use the word massage 9 to get the girls to Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ house? 10 A I did not want to straight up be like why 11 don't you jerk this guy off for money so... 12 Q You thought that was a better way to get 13 them to the house? 14 A Yeah, sounded a little bit more 15 professional aguess not as bad. 16 Q Okay. 17 Q When you brought other girls to the house 18 aside from Virginia where was elenmax in the house? 19 A Object form /STKPWHROUPBZ brought other 20 girls to the house aside from Virginia was 21 Ms. Maxwell in the house? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Where was Ms. Maxwell in the house when 24 you brought other girls to the house aside from 25 Virginia?Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 155 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 A In the kitchen. 2 Q And on these occasions would you see 3 Ms. Maxwell in the kitchen? 4 A Yes. 5 Q On these occasion when you would bring 6 girls other the Virginia to the house and 7 Ms. Maxwell was in the kitsch would Ms. Maxwell see 8 the girl you brought to the house? 9 A Yes. 10 A Form foundation. 11 Q And when you would brink these girls other 12 than Virginia to Jeff /AEF epi/STAOEPBZ house I see 13 Ms. Maxwell in the kitchen were you with the girl 14 that you just brought? 15 A Yes. 16 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBL form foun. 17 BY MR. EDWARDS: 18 Q I during these occasion what conversation 19 if any did Ms. Maxwell have knyefe girls you 20 brought? 21 A Not much pretty mump like I said when I 22 take the girls all it would just a friendly 23 conversation with everybody and just high what's 24 your name asking about what they do and where they 25 are and stuff like that. It was never anything likeCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 156 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 sexual talk or anything like that. 2 Q Okay. So just so have a good image of that 3 bring a girl authority when you brought a other than 4 verge into -- what door did you enter Jeffrey 5 Epstein's house? 6 A When you pull up to his house a walkway 7 where higarage is like off to the side that's the 8 bay I always go. 9 Q I know the sider door by the kitchen? 10 A Yeah. 11 Q So on one of occasions if you can think to 12 one of the occasion brought a girl into the kitchen 13 other than Virginia? 14 A Uh-huh. 15 Q And Ms. Maxwell an in the kitchen, did you 16 and this /OEURT girl that you were bringing over sit 17 there and together have this small stalk and 18 McMaxal? 19 A Yeah. 20 MS. MENNINGER: Fom form foundation. 21 A Yes. 22 Q And how long would you and one of these 23 other girls sit there and have this small talk with 24 Ms. Maxwell? 25 A No more than 10 or 15 minutes.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 157 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q What were you waiting for? 2 A Pretty much her to take them up stairs 3 then I would leave. I would wait for them to be 4 like we're ready. And I would be all right. See you 5 later and I would leave. 6 Q You were waiting for who to take who up 7 stairs? 8 A I had seen Ms. Maxwell take a girl up 9 there well not up there visibly but I watched her 10 leave had room with one. 11 Q Up stairs? 12 A Well, I didn't see the stairs. Like in 13 the kitchen there's not like you have to go all 14 around and all that shit. 15 Q Let me just understand what you did see 16 then. So you brought a girl over. We're talking 17 about an instance where you brought another girl 18 over to the house? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And your in the kitchen with this other 21 girl and Ms. Maxwell? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And what did you actually see in terms of 24 of where did that girl and with whom? 25 A I just saw them leave the room.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 158 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q Together? 2 A Together. And assumed that they were 3 heading up to massage room. 4 Q Because that was the purpose of bringing 5 her over? 6 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. 7 A Yeah. 8 MS. MENNINGER: Form founds. 9 BY MR. EDWARDS: 10 Q When during that circumstance? 11 Q So you undderstand the circumstance I'm 12 talking about you bring a girl into the kitchen and 13 Ms. Mackle is in the kitchen? 14 A Uh-huh. 15 Q And you see Ms. Maxwell and this girl 16 leave the kitchen? 17 A Yes. 18 Q When during that circumstances do you get 19 paid? 20 A I gid paid before anything happens period. 21 I walk in the door talk to Jeffrey and then he hands 22 me my money walk back to kitchen say by and leave. 23 And then like I said at some point and seen her 24 before when I was leave walking the girl out the 25 living room out through the kitchen. So she couldCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 159 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 have taken up stairs she could have not but I 2 definitely seen her walking. 3 Q On how many occasionings? 4 Q /KWROPBLT might I told me this but how 5 many occasion did you bring girls into the kitchen 6 and the three of you, you the girl you brought and I 7 /STKPWEULian Maxwell have conversation? 8 A Not many. I only met her maybe six times. 9 Q Each of the times you met gillian Maxwell 10 in Jeffrey epi/STAOEPBZ house did you have girls 11 that were being brought to Jeffrey? 12 A Everything time at the house it was either 13 with Virginia or some girl. I never went there by 14 myself. 15 Q He did not have a use for you? 16 A Yeah, he did not need me. 17 Q All right. That beginning of the 18 deposition I believe tell me if I got this wrong I 19 believe talk about it time Virginia just gone to 20 thiland talking to you in telephone? 21 A Uh-huh. 22 Q And you believe Jeff /AEF was supposed to 23 pay the phone bill; is that correct? 24 A Yeah. 25 Q Why did you believe Jeffrey Epstein wasCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 161 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 lead to where is she, so... 2 Q How did Jeffrey Epstein have you telephone 3 number? 4 A I would imagine from Virginia. 5 Q Okay. What prior to her going did he call 6 you on the telepone? 7 A I mean sometimes he would have his 8 assistant call thee but he did call me sometimes. 9 Q Which assistant call you of jiffy 10 sep/STAOEFRPBZ I can't remember her name but his 11 main asigh? 12 Q Would sarah callin cal lyou? 13 A I believe that's her. 14 Q Gillian Maxwell call you? 15 A I think she might have once or twice. 16 I'm not positive but I'm pretty sureee did. 17 Q Would the calls that gill wherein Maxwell 18 made to you been during the time that you were 19 living with Virginia or after Virginia had left? 20 A It was while living together. 21 Q And what would be what did Virginia what 22 did gillian Maxwell say to you when she called you 23 while living? 24 A 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection miscontact whenCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 162 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 watt. 2 A And what say what did he say? 3 Q Yes. 4 A Just ask mead had anybody else lined up. 5 Q Anything else lined up for what? 6 A Objection form /TPOUFRPBLDZ. 7 A For Jeffrey. 8 Q Let me fix this. Gill when gillian 9 Maxwell would call you during the time that you were 10 living with Virginia she would ask you what 11 specifically? 12 MS. MENNINGER: Fom form foundation. 13 A Just if I had found any ear girls just to 14 bring the Jeffrey. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Pretty much everytime a conversation with 17 any of them it was either asking Virginia where she 18 was ask the asking her to get girls or asking me get 19 girls. 20 Q Let's go to that second categorying you 21 just identified asking Virginia to get girls. How 22 many times were you in a room where specifically 23 gill max would ask Virginia to bring girls? 24 A Not that I can recall. 25 Q How many times when you say thigh askedCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 169 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q How often would Virginia according to 2 Virginia how much would Virginia and /PH*BGS maxal 3 go out look forg girls? 4 A I stopped asking after a while. I would 5 imagine every time but I don't recall. 6 A Every time when she was telling you or you 7 were asking that's what was happening. 8 A Yeah. 9 Q All right. And going back to when he 10 finally told you that having sex with these people? 11 A Uh-huh. 12 Q It was the people she told you that she 13 was having sex with Jeffp /STAOEPB Ms. Mackual 14 andthol other girls did you understand all the other 15 girls were? 16 A I just assumed justthol girls that heever 17 had at his house I never on a personal basis with 18 pretty much anyone except for the ones I went to 19 school with so... 20 Q And? 21 Q Of the girls brought to had us or that you 22 observed Virginia bring to the house how many of 23 them were professional masuesses? 24 A Zero. 25 Q What was the age range of the girls thatCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 170 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 you start with you that you brought with Jeffy 2 Epstein. Object to the form foundation? 3 A Well had age-age brought for sure were 4 around my age. I met them through school people 5 where knew actually hung out with. 6 Q What were the age range of the girls your 7 observe thad Virginia brought to the house? 8 MS. MENNINGER: Object to the form 9 foundation. 10 A I like I said I never asked them how old 11 they all seemed like there were younger. 12 Q Are you bring you bring 253540 year olds 13 to the house? 14 A No. 15 Q So within a range? 16 A I'd say probably 16 to 19. 17 Q Okay. 18 MS. MENNINGER: /TPOPBLG /TPORP foundation 19 sore slipping it in afterwards but... 20 BY MR. EDWARDS: 21 Q Yousaid when you were at the house you saw 22 naked photos what is the naked photo? 23 A Pictures of people naked. 24 Q Photohad ezpeople that were faked? 25 A Yeah.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 185 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 /STKRAUP /UPD some a/KAEUZsiobe the inside. 2 A Yes. 3 Q Hung out the by had pool? 4 A Yes. 5 Q On the /KWEUFPB? 6 A Yes? And in total of the times you went 7 if soohad house you saw Ms. Maxwellout gut tall ix. 8 A Five or six times. 9 Q Total? 10 A Tote. 11 Q Not fix? 12 A /PAOERLD all together. 13 Q /WROU brought? 14 A All together period. 15 Q I thought you said asking you questions 16 that Ms. Maxwell ever Jude bring girls? 17 A I don't remember saying had a. 18 Q Tell me when did Ms. Macual ask row to 19 bring a girl? 20 A Never /EUFRP person like liltally on it 21 phone once or twice. 22 Q Did Ms. Maxwell call you /TPR-BGSly? 23 A No. 24 Q How many times do you think Ms. Mackle? 25 A Ever just a few couple times onceoy twice.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 186 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 Q /PHUPLG ort of /TAOEUFPL pretty much his 2 assistant? 3 Q How do you know /PH*GS Maxwell's voice? 4 A Sounds British. 5 Q So-so someone British acthe /SHAOEFRPBLG 6 told me who she was? 7 Q And what did see say wheni called you 8 asked you to bring gills? 9 A High a gillian Jeffy wandering had anybody 10 to could come /STKPWHROEFRB when did that happen. 11 A I'm not exactty shirr of time /TPRAEUFPL. 12 Q After the road house grillo /PW-F? 13 A Probably I would think before I'm pretty 14 sure pretty positive. 15 Q /TPWH-FR /HOED house grill wray? 16 A After started going back to work with 17 Jeffrey /STAUPLD talking to her went back to him I 18 never Todd to Ms. Mackual again after the had to 19 been before that. 20 Q When /TKPEUD you stop talking to? 21 A Just /TWAOEPBT there never like she was 22 anything more than a high how are you kind a thing 23 not like when I talked to Jeffy ask me about stuff 24 and hold an information with her just hay hours your 25 mom see yeah not anything detail.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 26**ROUGH***Deposition of Tony Figueroa*** ROUGH*** 205 Southern Reporting Company (386)257-3663 1 A /HRO*EUTSeredered not like debate that. 2 Q So you waiver reading it if you like all 3 right. Thank you very much for you time? 4 (Off the record at 1:23 p.m.) order order. 5 MS. MENNINGER: Orderered. 6 BY MS. MENNINGER: 7 Q 8 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah I wand a copy. 9 Cology dense said. /EUFPLTS disc 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 26Exhibit 1Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 13B O I E S, S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P 401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE •200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 22 • PH. 954.356.001 • FAX 954.356.0022 VIA E-MAIL Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON , MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 lmenninger@hmtlaw.com Re: Guiffre v. Maxwell June 30, 2016 Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Laura, Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. E-mail: mschultz @bsfllp.com I write pursuant to this Court's June 20, 2016, Order regarding search and production from Defendant's electronic media. Accordingly, please use IMAP Capable software (or a functional equivalent) to capture all of the sent/received emails from Ms. Maxwell's various email accounts, including but not limited to the following: (1) GMaxl@ellmax.com (and any other accounts at ellmax.com); (2) gmax I (@mindspring.com (and any other accounts at mindspring.com) ; (3) any of Ms. Maxwell's email account associated with The Terramar Project (including any account ending in@theterramarproject.org) ; and (4) any other email accounts either used in the past, or currently in use. Additionally, please use FileSeek software (or a functional equivalent) to retrieve any data, including electronic documents (such as Word documents ; PDFs; Excel sheets; etc.), from Ms. Maxwell's devices, including personal computers , work computers, any tablets, and any phones. This includes any cloud storage accounts. Please confirm that you have imaged Ms. Maxwell's hard drives and other devices. Once you have gathered that data onto a platform (such as Summation or its functional equivalent), please run the below search terms. Since the Court ordered us to negotiate the search terms, please let me know if you think additional terms would be appropriate or whether you object to any terms, and your basis thereof. When applying the search terms, the search terms need to "hit" on documents even if the terms are embedded within other words. So, for example, the term "acuity" would yield a hit on the document, even if the word in the document is "acuityreputatoin." To return a hit on those WWW.BSFLLP .COM Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 12 embedded terms, I request that you use "wildcards" to ensure that embedded terms are located. (Wildcard characters are used to expand word searches into pattern searches by "replacing" single or multiple characters.) Where there are a specific number of characters needed to be included, a single wildcard will achieve that purpose. For example, in some programs, ! is used for single character wildcards, and * is used for multiple character wildcards. For instance: (a) Single character wildcard example: a search for L!n! will return "long," "link," "lane," "lone," etc. (b) Multiple character wildcard example: a search for chil* will return "children," "chill," "chilling," etc. (c) Mixed use ofwildcards: a search for L!n* will return "lines," "lining," "linty," etc. Accordingly, the below search terms are submitted with wildcard characters to be applied in the manner of the examples above. Please apply them as such with whatever characters is required by the software/platform that you will be using. Similarly, regarding how the terms are combined (AND or OR). OR should expand your results while AND will restrict result to only those which include all the terms. Additionally, I want to clarify that I would like all of the metadata to be searched in addition to the text of the documents. For example, if the search term is "acuity," "hits" should include all the document that include the word "acuity" in their text OR in their metadata (this includes words in items such as email subjects, filenames, as well as any documents which include that word somewhere within their text). I also wanted to point out another special syntax with regard to proximity searching. This is a search that finds words within a specified distance from one another. On some software, this is represented as w/#, so a search for "meet w/2 greet" will return "meet and greet," "greet and meet" and "meet and nicely greet." Please apply accordingly. Additionally, for searches for people's initials in the search terms, please use "exact matches," "stand alone," or "literal" terms (see, e.g., PA, AD, JE, GM). Finally, the search terms are not to be treated as case-sensitive, meaning that the terms should be searched according to their letters, regardless of whether they are represented in the list as containing upper case or lower case letters. The following are the applicable search terms. 1) jefl' 2) geofl' 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 13Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 12 3) epst! !n* 4) jeevacation* 5) j* w/2 *jep* 6) j* w/2 *jeep* 7) roberts* 8) g!!ff!!* 9) virginia* 10) jenna* 11) jena* 12) genna* 13) andrew* 14) prince* 15) royal* 16) PA 17) JE 18) GM 19) AD 20) -21) GX 22) massage* 23) masseur* 24) therapist* 25) ellmax* 26) mindspring* 27) gmax* 28) emmy* 29) taylor* 30) sara* 31) kellen* 32) kensington * 33) vikers* 34) dubin* 35) eva* 36) glen* 37) brunel* 38) jean* 39) luc* 40) nadia* 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 12 41) marcinko* 42) *copter* 43) chopper* 44) pilot* 45) manifest* 46) log* 47) flight* 48) passport* 49) terramar* 50) southern* w/3 district* 51) palm* w/3 beach* 52) state* /3 attorney* 53) ross* 54) gow* 55) acuity* 56) victoria* w/3 secret* 57) al!n* 58) all!n* 59) dersh* 60) law.harvard.edu * 61) alandersh* 62) 63) 64) new* w/3 mexico* 65) NM 66) virgin* w/3 island* 67) usvi* 68) little* w/3 st* 69) little* w/3 saint* 70) st* w/3 j* 71) saint* w/3 j* 72) lsj* 73) Iago* 74) clinton* 75) BC 76) HC 77) HRC 78) police* 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 5 of 12 79) cop* 80) fbi* 81) federal* w/3 bur* 82) bur* w/8 inves! * 83) sex* 84) abuse* 85) toy* 86) dildo* 87) strap* w/3 on* 88) vibr* 89) sm* w/3 101 * 90) slave* 91) erotic* 92) servitude* 93) abernathy* 94) brillo* 95) high* w/3 school* 96) secondary* w/3 school* 97) campus* 98) duke* 99) york* 100) licen!e* 101) assault* 102) juvenile* 103) seal* 104) joint* w/3 defen* 105) jda 106) roadhouse* 107) grill* 108) illegal* 109) immune* 110) prosecut* 111) law* w/3 enforc* 112) jane* w/3 *doe* 113) hospital* 114) hotel* 115) suite* 116) villa* 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 13Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 6 of 12 117) model* 118) actress* 119) france* 120) paris* 121) zoro* 122) ranch* 123) vanity* w/ 3 fair* 124) alexander* 125) kathy* 126) miles* 127) james* 128) austrich* 129) phil* 130) barden* 131)- 132) fary* 133) boothe* 134) laura* 135) evelyn* 136) boulet* 137) boylan* 138) bee* 139) bunner* 140) casey* 141) carolyn* 142) carolin* 143) paul* 144) cassell* 145) sharon* 146) churcher* 147) cousteau* 148) alexandar* 149) devansan* 150) 151) 152) edwards* 153) amanda* 154) ellison* 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 13Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 7 of 12 155) cimberly* 156) espinosa* 157) Tatiana* 158) farmer* 159) maria* 160) nn* 161) fekkai* 162) crystal* 163) figueroa* 164) anthony* 165) tony* 166) freeh* 167) louis* 168) dare* 169) gany* 170) garvin* 171) meg* 172) sheridan* 173) gibson* 174) but!e* 175) graff* 176) fred* 177) phil* 178) guderyon* 179) 180) 181) harrison* 182) shannon* 183) victoria* 184) hazel* 185) brittany* 186) henderson* 187) jaffe* 188) carol* 189) kess* 190) kutikoff* 191) pete* 192) listerman* 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 13Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 8 of 12 193) lyons* 194) bob* 195) meister* 196) jamie* 197) melanson* 198) lyn! * w/100 miller* 199) 200) 201) 202) 203) vanessa* 204) mullen* 205) pagano* 206) mary* 207) paluga* 208) stan* 209) potting er* 210) recarey* 211) reiter* 212) richards* 213) sky* 214) rothstein* 215) forest* 216) sawyer* 217) doug* 218) schoetlle* 219) cecelia* 220) stein* 221) mark* 222) tafoya* 223) brent* 224) tindall* 225) kevin* 226) kim* 227) thompson* 228) tuttle* 229) vaghan* 230) cresenda* 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 9 of 12 231) valdes* 232) valla* 233) martiza* 234) vazquez* 235) vick* 236) ard* 237) jarr!d* 238) weisfeld* 239) courtn!y* w/5 wild* 240) alessi* 241) rizzo* 242) rinaldo* 243) biddle* 244) sophie* 245) sofie* 246) degeo* 247) anouska* --249) fontanilla * 250) lynn* 251) jo* w/3 jo* 252) gramza* 253) grant* 254) waitt* 255) ted* 256) theod* -----1111 260) kovylina* ---263) lang* --265) listerman* 266) lopez* 267) cindy* 268) lutz* 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 13Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 10 of 12 269) mellawa* 270) brah* 271) jay* 272) -273) -274) mitrovich* 275) andrea* 276) peadon* 277) bill* 278) francis* 279) preece* 280) dara* 281) louella* 282) rabuyo* 283) robson* 284) haley* 285) adriana* 286) mucinska* 287) spamm* 288) visosky* 289) doug* OR dan* w/100 wilson* 290) igor* 291) zinoview* 292) allyson* 293) alyson* 294) alison* 295) allison* 296) chambers* 297) Gwendolyn* 298) beck* 299) Kelly* 300) Kelley* 301) Bovina* 302) ron* 303) burkle* 304) max* 305) cordero* 306) vald* 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 13Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 11 of12 307) cotrin* 308) chauntae* 309) dav* 310) teala* 311) ry!n* 312) dionne* 313) anders!n* 314) Rosalie* 315) fr!!dman* 316) tiffany* 317) Kathryn* 318) eric* 319) erik* 320) Lesl* 321) groff* 322) clair* ----325) gina* 326) ignatieva* 327) bret* 328) adam* 329) perry* 330) liffman* 331) Michael* 332) mike* 333) cheri* 334) lynch* 335) todd* 336) 337) 338) Joanna* 339) sjoberg* 340) leslie* 341) wexner* 342) underage* 343) under!age* 344) minor* 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 12 of 12 345) daily* w/10 mail* 346) daily* w/10 news* 347) lie* 348) obvious* w/10 lie* 349) sex w/3 toy* 350) nipple* 351) schoolgirl 352) school w/3 girl 353) us w/3 att* 354) United w/3 states w/3 att* 355) Guggenheim 356) Pedophil* 357) Paedophil* 358) Gerbil* 359) Traffic* 360) Bed* 361) Bath* 362) Masturbate* 363) Ejaculate* 364) Masseuse* 365) Lingerie 366) Boies* 367) Mccawley* 368) Schultz* Meredith L. Schultz MLS:dk 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 13Exhibit 2 (File Under Seal)Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 16(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMState v. Jeffrey Epstein Public Record No:16-208 State Files SAO Disc 7 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2296 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJaJane Doe 2Mercedes Benz 600 2001 Black Mercedes Benz 600 1997 Black Licence: G 14KCT Mercedes Benz 600 Conv 1998 Silver Licence: RAS85L Suburban 2001 Black I' ,.r,..CiJ l:;:Ji) Licence: WGE53R '/' ~ Crysler Mini Van 1996 White Licence: WGE52A Cobra Grand 1993 Green Volvo ✓--- 1998 /' Mrs Epstein / / Oil Well / VEIDCLES ( 561 ) 309-6415 Rear (561) 379-9390 ·-~t "'~ _'&c,..,._ ~Jr }(?)Py (561) 758-1672 Rear (561) 818-8867 Front (561) 346-7141 (561) 371-1686 (561) 308-5700 (561) 686-3707 900 Southern Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Tel: (561) 835-9374 Mercedes Benz of Palm Beach 4000 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Att: Shawn Adison Tel: (561) 689-6363 Roger Dean Chevrolet 2235 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Tel: (561) 683-8100 Nestor Auto Repairs 2600 Florida Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 835-0809 Nestor Auto Repairs 2600 Florida Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 835-0809 Volvo Palm Beach 5544 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33417 Tel: (561) 471-7600 Oil change every 3 000 miles Registration, insurance and yearly inspection papers to be kept in the glove compartment of each vehicle Spare keys are kept in the key box in the office Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2297 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2Muvico Parisian Bishop Water Co Carmine Giardini's C'est Si Bon Publix Super Market Wild Oats Pharmacy City Place 545 Hibiscus Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 833-0400 GROCERY STORES ll'i Tel: (561) 582-1367 c;w~ 2401 PGA Boulevard , Suite 172 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 280 Sunset Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 659-6503 265 Sunset Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33..480 Tel: (561) 655-4120 7735 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Tel: (561) 585-8800 Ru-i-.r- fiij-bottled water (large and sn;iall} Fish, meat, gourmet foods Gourmet foods General, cleaning, toiletries Health Foods HEALTH & BEAUTY Greens Pharmacy 151 North County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 832-4443 Lewis Pharmacy 235 South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 655-7867 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2298 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMWater Electricity Gas Sewer Trash Removal Telephone UTILITIES City of West Palm Beach 226 Cypress Lane Palm Springs, FL 33461 Tel: (561) 965-sno Florida Power and Light General Mailing Facility Miami, FL 33188-0001 Tel: (561) 697-8000 Florida Gas Company 401 South Dix·ie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 832-0872 City of West Palm Beach 226 Cypress Lane Palm Springs, FL 33461 Tel: (561) 965-5770 Water shut-off for entire property is located next to the mailbox on the sidewalk. City of West Palm Beach Daily (Monday -Frida~ 226 Cypress Lane . . Palm Springs, FL 33461 1 l('.a, c 1 ~-,, \,\1, 1 \\,, v, j 1o&-l t-l a>~ Tel: (561) 965-5770-Lv 0\.e,.... Y\? ("lo\) 0:-("~ ffi)?..:t. \n,\.-\1-o'f\"\~.A ' ETC 2921 N Australian Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Tel: (561) 881-8118 Bell South Tel: (561) 780-2611 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2299 Public Records Request No.: 16-268 (*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Plumber Pool Tree Trimming Storage USA Car Detailing Foster Plumbing General plumbing repairs 2800 Westgate Avenue West Palm Beack, FL 33409 Roto Rooter Blocked drains 6600 NW 12th Avenue, Suite 213 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Tel: (561) 832-1495 Hackl Pools 1331 Central Terrace Lake Worth, FL 33460 . (!, ~a;f '­ Tel: (561) 588-7493 \)1.1/ County Wide Tree Service Tel: (561) 371-5786 STORAGE 5580 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33417 Tel: (561) 683-9955 VEIDCLES each Wa q e,01?..c,e ./ GI ec, 11 lcr If. ii 71-L/ 6 W 1 >t /} J/e flo y 11 -lo'7 l]eqc/2 r / 53126 Monday and Thursday at 10:30am Clean pool, filter, ad ~~Gi6~ First Monday in May and November 1 O ft x 20 ft unit available ~.G. 1 ·2. 4 .s aj v:..-l tw. ~)'h'.\o~~/~ 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2300 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2FedEx Post Office Air Conditioning Awnings Cable Service Carpenter Carpet Cleaners Computers MAIL & DELIVERY SERVICES 1-800-463-3339 Account No: - Drop-off box is next to Palm Beach National Bank on Worth Avenue 401 South County Road West Palm Beach, FL Tel: (561) 832-0697 lVIAINTENANCE Cassidy Air Conditioning 501 Fern Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 -\lzL~ Tel: (561) 833-6331 . ·' ~ t~-. American Awning Company 537 Pine Terrace West Palm Beach, FL 33405 Tel: (561) 832-7123 Adelphia Cable 1401 North Point Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Tel: (561) 478-8300 Stanley Steamers Tel: (561) 586-5700 Merry Rugs Tel: (561) 588-8588 0022 Monthly service contract First Monty of ~very mo~h -:)00 ~V\O .....- Account No: Send to Eric Gany for reconciliation $1,000 Petty Cash Float Mongoose Crossway 450 Raleigh Aluminium 300 Mercedes Benz Cignal Sports Bike Schwinn World Huffy Santa Fe Raleigh Sport Scott Boston BOOKSTORES Publix Super Market 265 Sunset Avenue Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 655-4120 Main Street News 255 Royal Poinciana Way Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 833-4027 CLEANING SERVICE One South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561)655-6611 2000 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: (561) 833-1812 1100 South Ocean Boulevard Palm Beach, FL 33480 Tel: (561) 832-2600 very Tuesday and Wednesday :00am -4:00pm Francis and Pastora Peadon) Renew car park stickers every September Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2303 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Electrician Exterminator Garden Service Garage Doors Gates Irrigation Landscape Spraying Locksmith Painter Energy Efficient Electric Tel: (561) 655-7211 Palm Beach Exterminating Tel: (561) 689-0808 Alan Stopek Efflorescence Jerome Pierre The Ooorsmith 4160 NW First Avenue Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: 561 391-7768 Contact is Ken First Monday of every month at 10:30am Also use for termite tent Part-time help. Billed through Alan Stopek. In residence: Daily from 6.30am Not in residence: Mon -Fri from 2pm -5pm Also maintains Mrs Epstein's property on Saturday mornings . Reich Metal Fabricators/\ 0""' Back door gate switch -above garage door /--.. \ controls. When open, round red light is on. Tel: (561) 585-3173 J V\ 't\ t/ Dolphin Sprinkler Inc Tel: (561) 844-8082 J')"'6t"' Academy Services Tel: (561) 478-4629 Wilson Rowan Locksmiths 625 South Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Front door gate switch -in telephone outlet above the kitchen telephone Arrange through Alan Stopek Bill ~ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 16Page 2304 o.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2J Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2~ -~ s\J;t '.~~~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ _· ~?A'\ k sio1~\(( _ 1:>~tLL, -•t<:"' ?""" "\ I ~}>cf'~ .,L \3 ,-V'A,U (_ k" -~ I -y~ ~ i l,,t )i ~ \p-1,,c;J~~o~ --r-;;I.JI o.oD~c~ &,---c6o'36 ite l)h1~ \ 2..-, -~~ct011 je)M Luu k , --~ v-~tb ik tovfoM ~Nr/ ~il~ L6\, ~ .. , ~-0. -[.ll •• ~U(c ~-,,· \ L0 ~ ti CoJ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2305 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 JaJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2, Address / Telephone Sheet # 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach Fl, 33480 Name Mr. Jeffrey Epstein (NYSG LLC 457, Madison Avenue 4th Floor Address New York, NY 10021. I Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Accountants Eric Gany f <" • l=~J:> ~~NN~ ~l-~ • Bella K.lein-Accountanf.\ C'Pct f\"i Ce 1 'h, ~e-"() ') Assistants Leslie Groff (JE Sec) Cecelia Helan Kim Mciuh1U1 Cemp89 ~""~ 1>..,._,1.& Property Keith Blumberg Engineer ~ 7 ~ "ttt) 24, •l\l~ 0. ·1 .. • 5C.l.lcOeTI LE Computers 'O 'D Mark Lumberg Residences of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein 9 East 71 '1 Street. New York NY 10021 Mr. Jeffrey Epstein Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell Staff House Manager Jojo House Manger Lynn Staff Phone Chef Brent Tindall Telephone/Fax Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2306 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Palm Beach Contractors General Plumbing Customer Service represeotative Amy 561 585 259 I Electrical Reel Power Inc Lenny (electrician) 5617060827 Gates Samco Systems Sam (owner) 5617194832 Service gate switch: above garage door controls, when round light is on Front gate switch: just above the telephone outlet kitchen area Garage doors The Door Smith fuc Telephones Southern Bell (repairs) Internal Phone system ( NEQ Repair and Programming AJarm System Benham [ndustries Inc Locksmith Wilson & Rowan A/C Maintenance John C Cassidy Handyman Carlos (cl!IJ)enter) 4-i,CC.\ r•·d..v Landscape Alan Stopeck _y Pest Control X/ Palm Beach Exterminator Irrigation Dolphin Sprinkle Pool Heating National Pool Service Pool Maintenance Hack Pool Service Tree Trimming Country Wide Trees Carpet Cleaners Stanley Steamers Merry Rug Keith Kelly Keith 24 hr service Kim When needed Monday/ Thursday Twice, swnmer/winter wall to wall area rug 561 780 2355 561 8818118 854 491 4112 561 655 3637 561 844 8082 561 478 4696 561 585 8866 561 588 7493 561371 5786 5615865700 5615888588 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2307 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Cable Adelphia cable Cable TV Bottled Water. Bishop water company A vion water Upholsterer Frank Jeanes Gas Gas Energy Inc (Joe Di Giovanni) aU gas repairs) Laundry equipment May Tag Painter Sam Contact Lenny Storage Storage USA 5580, Okeechobee Blvd Unit 6218 Grocery & General Household items General Grocery Publix 265, Sunset Ave Gourmet food c· est si boo 289, Sunset Blvd Carmines 2401 PGA Blvd Take 95 North to PGA Blvd Too Jays Gravelox/ Nova sliced salmon Green Pharmacy 151., N Cowily Road Flowers Extra tOll.dl flowers Hardware Home Depot Sewell Hardware 528 Clematis Street Newspapers Main Street News 255, Royal Poinciana Way Post Office 401, South County Road, Car Detailing Taxi Service/Limo FedEx Recycling Trash collection Cars Mercedes of Palm Beach Chevrolet George Dan Tischen # 114420816 (Monday & Thursday) Every Thursday 6AM to 5PM M-F once a day Early Morning Auto Repairs Gray Sunoco 340 South County Nestor Auto 2600, Florida A venue GasolineGray Sunoco 561~0 561582 1367 -561 963 0505 1800 622 4729 561 683 5835 561 655 4120 5616596503 5617759233 5616556545 5618324443 561 835 8000 5618320783 561 832 7171 5618334027 I : f I I 1800 463 3339 561 689 6393 561 683 8100 561 655 6645 5618350809 0 0 (. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2308 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2• ---.' t. :J+fTEL lf _ J -::::---- (( Ovit ~f' 1)~ 5z_~f 2-: - irfp I t)Ps-· I . 1 ,-JC <-0 ~,' ·\ , r. -T, Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 1602/11/2015 Page 2309 Public Records Request No.: 16-268(*6''3& $POGJEFOUJBMJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 JaJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2~-d.~ -li{\~ 1:1s-r"wi Ad..~~""-c..._ -fl [I, 5•, ST PO'\ C\-0.A -C, lt G (OW~"' re~ Lvt.., -S('t)t'\~J t-t~M"-t') m~vs <.,/4 /o} ~ 33.0 "L A-M~ w, ll bt \\tr~ e... t, ~ ?,o '°""' -t-{l~lo>- 1:ooi'M ~~ l.LJc -f'ou....- 5.ec-.Sov\ S"t'L--1..ttx> ~++- .... c, \t 2'I I),;-t. •• 4 o tJ ""t\,\.....L:-t.. -c.oftq f of" ~"""'~-t. Bu'll\S -1oJ➔ A~r14 . Cof"I\ Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 16EXHIBIT 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4United States District Court Southern District Of New York --------------------------------------------------X Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, v. 15-cv-07433-RWS Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S INITIAL F.R.C.P. 26(a)(l)(A) DISCLOSURES Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(l)(A), Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell makes the following disclosures: I. IDENTITIES OF INDIVIDUALS LIKELY TO HA VE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DISPUTED FACTS ALLEGED WITH PARTICULARITY IN THE PLEADINGS 1. Ghislaine Maxwell c/o Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. 150 E. 10th Ave. Denver, CO 80203 303-831-7364 LMenninger@HMFLaw.com Ms. Maxwell is the Defendant and may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including the events of 1999-2002 and the publication of statements in the press in 2011-2015. 2. Virginia Lee Roberts Giuffre c/o Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Mr. Edwards has knowledge concerning Plaintiff's false statements to the press, in court pleadings, and in sworn testimony at issue in this matter. Mr. Edwards also has knowledge concerning "Victim's Refuse Silence, Inc." 7. Jeffrey Epstein c/o Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esq. 315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 467-1223 Mr. Epstein has knowledge concerning Plaintiffs false statements to the press and in court pleadings, as well as the events of 1999-2002 concerning Plaintiff and Defendant. 8. Anthony Figueroa Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Figueroa may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff's activities during 1996-2002. 9. Louis Freeh Address unknown at this time Mr. Freeh may have knowledge concerning travel of Bill Clinton. I 0. Robert Giuffre Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Mr. Giuffre is may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including Plaintiff's activities during 2002-2016 and her damages allegations. 11. Ross Gow Acuity Representation 23 Berkeley Square London WIJ 6HE Mr. Gow may have knowledge concerning matters at issue, including the publication of statements in the press in 2011-2015 concerning Plaintiff and Defendant. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4Dated: February 24, 2016. Respectfully submitted, s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 24, 2016, I electronically served this DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S INITIAL F.R.C.P. 26(A)(J) DISCLOSURES via e-mail on the following: Sigrid S. Mccawley Borns, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 1 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF ’S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND DIRECT DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITI ON QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL1 Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposit ion Questions. On June 20, 2016, this Court Ordered Defendant to sit for a second deposition because her refusal to answer questions posed in her first Deposition (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order, fi led in redacted version at D.E. 264-1). Yet, during her second deposition, Defendant again refu sed to answer numerous questions regarding sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein in contravention of this Court’s Order. Accordingly, the Court should direct her to fully answer the relevant questions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giu ffre’s assertions that she and other females were recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of being “massage therapists.” See Complaint, DE1, at ¶ 27 (Giuffre “described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities 1 Defendant has labelled her entire deposition transcript as Confidential at this time. -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 17 2 and a primary co- conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme”). Numerous other witnesses , with knowledge of Defendant’s activities, have testified to the same: x See Schultz Declaration (“Schultz Decl.”) at Composite Exhibit 1, Excerpts from May 18, 2016, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg at p. 34:20-35:1. “Q. And did you -- what did you understand her to mean? A. [Maxwell] was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it. Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you mean bring him to orgasm? A. Yes.” . . . “How long did you work for Jeffrey and Ghislaine? A: I believe it was five years, 2001 to 2006. Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive per day on average? THE WITNESS: Three.” Id. at pg. 30:15-25 . . . “Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received so many massages from so many different girls? A. He explained to me that, in his opinion, he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was biological, like eating.” Id. at p.32: 9-16. x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 2, Excerpts from June 24, 2016, Deposition of Tony Figueroa at pg. 200:5-18; 96:8-15. “Q. …when Ghislaine Maxwell would call you during the time you were living with Virginia, she would ask you what specifically? A. Just if I had found any other girls just to bring to Jeffrey. Q. Okay. A. Pretty much every time there was a conversation with any of them it was either asking Virginia where she was at, or asking me to get girls.” “Q What has -- what is that? A. That her [Virginia] and Maxwell and Jeffrey would obviously be doing stuff, all three of them together. Like I said that they would all go out to clubs to pick up girls and try to find them to bring back for Jeffrey. And then she told me about how, like I said, her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey were all intimate together on multiple occasions.” x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Excerpts of June 21, 2016, Deposition of Detective Recarey at pg. 29:11-20. “Q. “Okay. During your investigation, what did you learn in terms of Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement, if any? THE WITNESS: Ms. Maxwell, during her research, was found to be Epstein's long-time friend. During the interviews, Ms. Maxwell was involved in seeking girls to perform massages and work at Epstein's home.” x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, Excerpts from June 10, 2016, Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo at pg. 52:8 . “A. What happens next when Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein and a 15-year-old girl walk into Eva Anderson's home? . . . “A. She proceeds to tell my wife and I that, and this is not -- this is blurting out, not a conversation like I'm having a casual conversation. That quickly, I was on an island, I was on the island and there was Ghislaine, there was Sarah, she said they asked me for sex, I said no. And she is just rambling, and I'm like what, and she said -- I asked her, I said what? And she says yes, I was on the island, I don't know how I got from the island to here. Last afternoon or in the afternoon I was on the island and now I'm here. And I said do you have a -- this is not making any sense to me, and I said this is nuts, do you have a passport, do you have a phone? And she says no, and she says Ghislaine took my passport. And I said what, and she says Sarah took her passport and her phone and gave it to Ghislaine Maxwell, and at that point she said that she was threatened.” Id. at pg. 56:2-24 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 17 3 x See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 5, Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of John Alessi at pg. 28:6-15 . “Q. And over the course of that 10-year period of time while Ms. Maxwell was at the house, do you have an approximation as to the number of different females -- females that you were told were massage therapists that came to the house? THE WITNESS: I cannot give you a number, but I would say probably over 100 in my stay there." Id. at pg. 30:15-25 “Q: Did you go out looking for the girls -- A. No. Q. -- to bring -- A. Never. Q. -- as the massage therapists? A. Never. Q. Who did? A. Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein and their friends, because their friends relayed to other friends they knew a massage therapist and they would send to the house. So it was referrals.” In response to Ms. Giuffre’s assertions about Defendant recruiting of females for sexual purposes, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. Giuffre’s assertions are “entirel y false” and “entirely untrue.” Complaint, DE 1, at ¶ 31. Accordingly, this Court directed as follows: Defendant is ordered to answer questions relating to Defendant’s own sexual activity (a) with or involving Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), (b) with or inv olving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstei n or who Defendant believed or intended might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be, or believed might become, known to Epstein. Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others (a) with or involving Epstein, (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed were known or might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein. (FN. Each of the aforementioned lists are disjunctive.) The scope of Defendant’s answers are not bound by time period, though Defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case. See Schultz Decl. at Exhibit 6, Sealed June 20, 2016, Order at p. 10 (Emphasis added). Despite this instruction from the Court, during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer many questions related to “sexual activity with or involving Jeffrey Epstein, with or involving Plaintiff . . . or involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed were known to might become known to Epstein.” The result was that at a number of -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 17 4 points throughout her deposition, Defendant refused to answer questions about subjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions about a st udent, Joanna Sjoberg, who Defendant recruited from her school to give massages to, and have se x with, Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of hiring her to answer phones. For example, Defendant refused to answer questions about recruiting Ms. Sjoberg for sex with Epstein: Q. So is it fair to say that Johanna was initially hired to answer telephones, according to your testimony? MR. PAGLIUCA: This has already been te stified to Mr. Boies. We are repeating testimony now. MR. BOIES : I think in the context of the witness’ answers, these are fair questions. Now, I’ve asked you before, if you want to instruct her not to answer, if you want to go to the judge, we are happy to do that, but I would suggest in the interest of moving it along, that you stop these speeches. MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not moving it along is the problem, so maybe we should call the court and get some direction here, because I am not going to sit here and rehash the testimony we already gave. MR. BOIES : That’s fin [e]. [At this point a telephone call was placed to Judge Sweet’s chambers]. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg.78:17-79:14. MR. BOIES: So how did it happen, Ms. Maxwel l, that Joanna, who had been hired to answer the phones, ended up giving massages to you and Mr. Epstein. MR. PAGLIUCA : I’m going to instruct you not to answer the question. This has been previously , the subject of your former deposition, it doesn’t fall into any of the categories ordered by the court, and so you don’t need to answer that. Id. at pg.81:15-25. Defendant’s counsel’s instruction not to answe r was improper. This C ourt’s Order stated: “Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others . . . involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 17 5 might become known to Epstein.” Ms. Sjoberg is an important witness in this case – one of the witnesses Ms. Giuffre has deposed. She is an individual Defendant knew to be known to Epstein, who knew and interacted with Ms. Giuff re when Ms. Giuffre was underage, and who participated in massage and sexual activities with Epstein. Defendant knew that Ms. Sjoberg was known to Epstein as Defendant recruited her to massage Epstein and participate in sexual activities during those massages . And Ms. Sjoberg testified directly about Defendant’s involvement, including Defendant’s offer or an expensive camera in exchange for sex: Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do in order to get the camera? A: I did not know that there were expectations of me to get the camera until after. She [Maxwell] had purchased the camera for me, and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage. I did not know that she was in possession of the camera until later. She told me -- called me after I had left and said, I have the camera for you, but you cannot receive it yet because you came here and didn't finish your job and I had to finish it for you. Q. And did you -- what did you understand her to mean? A. She was implying that I did not get Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it. Q. And when you say "get Jeffrey off," do you mean bring him to orgasm? A. Yes. See Schultz Declaration at Composite Exhibit 1, Excerpts from May 18, 2016 Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg at p. (P. 34:5-35:1). Q: …. What did you understand Maxwell to mean when she said you hadn't finished the job, with respect to the camera? A: She implied that I had not brought him to orgasm. Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging Jeffrey? A: Yes, I took that conversation to mean that is what was expected of me. ” Id. at p. 142:25-143:14 (Emphasis added). -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 17 6 In the wake of this specific deposition testimony from Ms. Sjoberg, during her own recent deposition, Defendant continued to refuse to testify about Ms. Sjoberg’s massages and sexual activity with Epstein: Q. Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the massages that she gave Mr. Epstein? Mr. Pagliuca: You just asked this question, and I told her not to answer. I will tell her not to answer again for the same reasons. Q. Do you know how much Mr. Epstein paid Johanna to give massages? Mr. Pagliuca: Same instruction to the witness. Why do you believe this is within the scope of the court’s order? Mr. Boies: Because of the court’s reference to massages, and because I think how much a girl who was hired to answer the phone was paid to give a “massage” goes to whether there actually was or was not sexual activity involved. Mr. Pagiluca: The witness has testified there wasn’t. Mr. Boies: Perhaps it will surprise you, I think it should not, that I do not believe in my deposition I need to simply accept her characterization without cross-examination. Now that’s something the judge can decide, but a question as to how much this young girl was being paid for a “massage,” I think goes directly to the issue of sexual act ivity. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg. 82:25-84:6. Additionally, Defendant refused to answer questions concerning the sexual abuse involving herself, Mr. Epstein, and Annie and Maria Farmer, described in a Vanity Fair article: “What do you have on the girls?” [Epstein] would ask the question over and over again. What I had “on the girls” were some remarkably brave first -person accounts. Three on- the-record stories from a family: a mother and her daughters [Maria Farmer, Annie Farmer, and their mother] who came from Phoenix. The oldest daughter, an artist whose character was vouchsafed to me by several s ources, including the artist Eric Fischl, had told me, weeping as she sat in my living room, of how Epstein had attempted to seduce both her and, separately, her younger sister, then only 16. He’d gotten to them because of his money. He promised the older sister patronage of her art work; he’d promised the younger funding for a trip abroad that would give her the work experience she needed on her resume for a place at an Ivy League unive rsity, which she desperately wanted - and would win. The girls’ mother told me by phone that she had thought her daughters would Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 17 7 be safe under Epstein’s roof, not least because he phoned her to reassu re her, and she also knew he had Ghislaine Maxwell with him at all times. When the girls’ mother learned that Epstein had, regardless, allegedly molested her 16-year-old daughter , she’d wanted to fight back. “I Tried to Warn You about Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003,” Vicky Ward, January 6, 2015, Daily Beast Article (Emphasis added). Defendant would not answer many questions concerning her role with in the molestation of these girls while she was sharing a house with Maria Farmer and Jeffrey Epstein: Q. Do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner’s property in Ohio? Mr. PAGLIUCA: Can you tell me how th at relates to this order, counselor? MR. BOIES: Yes, I think it goes directly to the sexual activity related to Maria Farmer and what Mr. Epstein was doing with Maria Farmer. Again, you can instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: I’m trying to understand why you are asking these questions before I - MR. BOIES: I’m asking these quest ions because these are people wh o not only have been publicly written about in terms of the sexual activity that they were put into in connection with Mr. Epstein, but the person who wrote about them is someone who talked to the witness about it, and I think that this is more than easily understood cross- examination. MR. PAGLIUCA: Your question was, do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner’s property in Ohio. MR. BOIES: Yes. And if you let her answer, you will see where it leads. If you won’t let her answer, the judge is going to determine it. And I just suggest to you that you stop these speeches and stop debating, because you are not going to convince me not to follow-up on these questions. If you can convince the court to truncate the deposition, that’s your right, but all you’re doing is dragging this deposition out. MR. PAGLIUCA: You have the opportunity to give me a good faith basis why you are asking these questions. MR. BOIES: I have given you a good faith basis. MR. PAGLIUCA: You haven’t. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 17 8 MR. BOIES: Then instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: I am giving you the opportunity to say why you are asking the questions, and why I’m telling her not to answer and I am entitled to know that. MR. BOIES: You are not entitled to know why I’m asking the question. You are only entitled to know that it relates to the subject matter that I am entitled to inquire about, and I don’t think the judge is going to think that, you know, where Mr. Epstein shipped Maria Farmer off to is outside the scope of what I’m entitled to inquire about. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg. 99:6-101:20. Defendant’s counsel also stopped a line of questioning in which Defendant was asked if she recalled several girls Tony Figueroa brought over to give a “massage” to Epstein . The Court will recall that Mr. Figueroa previously testified in this case that he brought underage girls to Epstein at Defendant’s behest, and that Defendant called him, asking him to bring the gir ls.2 Accordingly, at Defendant’s recent deposition, Ms. Giuffre’s counsel attempted to follow up on this subject: Q. Have you ever heard the name of Carolyn Andriamo, A-N-D-R-I-A-M-O? A. I don't recollect that name at all. 2 Tony Figueroa testified that Defendant called him and asked him to bring girls over, and that there were no “legitimate” massages: “ Q. Any of the girls that you are aware of having gone to the house - either because you brought them or Virginia - as you sit here today, do you believe any of them were brought over to be legitimate masseuse? A. Nope. ” See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 2, Excerpts from June 24, 2016, Deposition of Tony Figueroa at pg. 245:1-8. “Q. And how long would you and one of these girl s sit there and have this small talk with Ms. Maxwell? A. No more than 10 or 15 minutes. Q. All right and what were you waiting for? A. Pretty much her to take them upstairs. And then I would leave. Like I would have to wait for them to be like, ‘All right. Well we’re ready.’ And I would be like ‘ All right. S ee you later.’ And then I’d leave. And they would go do whatever.” Id. at pg. 193:14-25. “Q. During this 2001 period, if you were driving Virginia and other girl to the house, what type of girls would you be driving? A. Pretty much like young looking teena gers 16, 17. Really pretty. You know.” Id. at pg. 182:4-10. -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 17 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Boies, those names are on Exhibit 26, which we have already gone over and she said she didn't recognize those people, so now we are just repeating things that we went over. MR. BOIES: I am in the context of seeing if I can refresh her recollection, because these are women that who she also does not recall, brought over to Mr. Epstein's residences, and I also want to make a very c lear record of what her testimony is and is not right now. Again, you can instruct her not to answer if you wish. MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm trying to get to nonrepetitive questions here. You basically asked the same question three times. Then we get a pile of notes that get pushed up to you, you read those. Then you ask those three times, and then we go to another question. So it's taking an inordinately long amount of time and it shouldn't. MR. BOIES: I think that is a demonstrably inaccurate statement of what has been going on, and I attribute -- maybe I shouldn't attribute it at all. But if you want to instruct not to answer, instruct not to answer. If you don't, again, all I will do is request that you cease your comments. I can't do that. All I can do is seek sanctions afterwards. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at pg. 154:20-156:10. Based on Defendant’s refusal to answer questions related to specific girls, Mr. Boies was forced to discontinue asking questions about these victims. Defendant also refused to answer questions concerning the “sexual activities of others . . . involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein,” when she refused to answer a question about the records she kept of the young girls who would perform massage and sexual activities with Epstein: Q. Was there a list that was kept of women or girls who provided massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: This has been previously deposed on. This is not part of the court's order, I will tell her not to answer. MR. BOIES: You are going to tell her not to answer a question that says was there a list of women or girls who provided massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: She has been previously deposed on this subject.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 17 10 MR. BOIES: I think this is squarely in the court's order, but if you instruct her not to answer, you instruct her not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: We'll find out. Id.at pg. 184:14-185:6. Q. “In 2005, were you aware of any effort to destroy records of messages you had taken of women who had called Mr. Epstein in the prior period? MR. PAGLIUCA: D on’t answer that question. It’s outside the court’s order. Id.at pg. 177:5-11. Ample evidence in this case establishes that not only did Defendant recruit underage girls for massage and sexual activities with Epstein, but that she participated in calling the girls; getting other people to bring girls; talking to the girls; taking massages from and leaving messages about the girls; and scheduling the gi rls to come over. Accordingly, questions concerning written records documenting De fendant’s involvement in, and knowledge of, the girls who “massage d” Epstein is clearly within the ambit of this Court’s Order. For example, a message from July of 2004 records Defendant , “Ms. Maxwell,” giving a message to Mr. Epstein as message from (a n underage girl who was 14 years old on the date of the message) that “ is available on Tuesday no one for tomorrow.” See GIUFFRE001465.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 1711See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 8, Messages Involving Defendant3. In the investigation of Mr. Epstein’s sex crimes against minors, law enforcement was able to confirm identities of underage victims through the use of the names re corded these messages, which were recovered from Epstein’s trash.4Accordingly, the messages, and the girls described therein, are fully within the ambit of this Court’s Order. 3GIUFFRE001523; GIUFFRE001427; GIUFFRE001451; GIUFFRE001454; GIUFFRE001460; GIUFFRE001461; GIUFFRE001464; GIUFFRE001465; GIUFFRE001436; GIUFFRE001435; GIUFFRE001472; GIUFFRE001474; GIUFFRE001492; GIUFFRE001553; GIUFFRE001388; GIUFFRE001555; GIUFFRE001556; GIUFFRE001557; GIUFFRE001392; GIUFFRE001526; GIUFFRE001530; GIUFFRE001568; GIUFFRE001536; GIUFFRE001538; GIUFFRE001541; GIUFFRE001546; GIUFFRE001399; GIUFFRE001402; GIUFFRE001405; GIUFFRE001406; GIUFFRE001449; GIUFFRE001409; GIUFFRE001410; GIUFFRE001411; GIUFFRE00; etc. 4Palm Beach Police Officer Recarey was depose d about information pulled by police officers from trash discarded by Epstein from his home: Q. The next line down is what I wanted to focus on, April 5th, 2005. This trash pull, what evidence is yielded from this particular trash pull? THE WITNESS: The trash pull indicated that there were several messages with written items on it. There was a message from HR indicating that there would be llB'!\llU'@ 't'CIJ.il CAI.I. l\ l5 Mc~~li LE°' "@N ,_T_U_t:~-, ,---_ NO,· t::l N il·Fe"ft/~£JMO~~ ~ ft Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 17 12 Finally, Defendant also refused to answer foundational questions that are necessary to precede questions authorized by this Court, such as: x “In terms of preparing for this deposition, what documents did you review?” See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 7, Excerpts from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell at 174:2-4. x Now, have you ever engaged in oral sex? Id. at 18:14-15. x Q. Did you ever have oral sex with anyone in any of Mr. Epstein's five homes that you've identified other than Mr. Epstein? Id. at 20:7-10. x Did you, in the 1990s and 2000s, engage in sexual activities other than intercourse with women other than what you have testified to already? Id. at 89:24-90:3. an 11:00 appointment. There were other individuals that had called during that day. Q. And when you would -- when you would see females' names and telephone numbers, would you take those telephone numbers and match it to -- to a person? THE WITNESS: We would do our best to identify who that person was. Q. And is that one way in which you discovered the identities of some of the other what soon came to be known as victims? THE WITNESS: Correct. See Schultz Decl. at Composite Exhibit 3, Exce rpts of June 21, 2016 Deposition of Detective Recarey at pg. 42:14-43:17. Recarey went on to describe the importance of the information: Q. Did you find names of other witnesses and people that you knew to have been associated with the house in those message pads? THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. And so what was the evidentiary value to you of the message pads collected from Jeffrey Epstein's home in the search warrant? THE WITNESS: It was very important to corroborate what the victims had already told me as to calling in and for work. Id. at 78:25 -79:15. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 17 13 In sum, Defendant refused to answer important questions relating to the following topics that were authorized by this Court’s Order: (1) Defendant ’s information relating to and knowledge of the circumstances of Johanna Sjoberg perfor ming massages and sex acts upon Epstein; (2) Defendant’s information relating to and knowledge of the circ umstances relating to the abuse of Maria Farmer and her sister by Defendant and Epstein; (3) Defendant’s information relating to and knowledge of any lists or records of girls who gave “massage s” to Epstein; (4 ) Defendant’s involvement with messages (o r related documents) showing Defendant’s knowledge of, and involvement in, the scheduling of underage girls for massage and sex with Epstein, and any destruction of evidence related to these messages (or related records); (5) foundational questions that were necessary precedent to asking questions authorized by this Court’s Order ; and (6) all related questions that arise out of any response Defendant provides within the parameters of the Court’s June 20, 2016, Order . DISCUSSION The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer questions in the topic areas where she refused to answer during her recent deposition. Topics 1 - 4 above are central parts of this case, and Topics 5 and 6 link directly to central parts of this case. Ms. Giuffre, and now other knowledgeable witnesses, have explained and testi fied that Defendant not only had knowledge of Epstein’s massages and sexual activity with others, but she actively facilitated the sexual massages through recruiting y oung females and underage girls for the purpose of “massage” and sexual activity. And proof that Defendant both had knowledge of, and was involved in, these schemes and encounters, will further help prove that Defendant’s statements to the press that Virginia’s allegations were “obvious lies” was itself an obvious lie. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 17 14 The questions Defendant refused to answer fall squarely within this Court ’s earlier order. Defendant can have no legitimate basis for obstructing the search for truth by refusing to answer. The Court should, again, compel Defendant to answer all these questions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. A1 Tech. , No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) (“Under the Federal Rules, when a party refuses to answer a question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent's objection to answering the questions, and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld answers during a continued deposit ion” (internal citations omit ted)). Of course, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of pr oving the validity of its objections, particularly in light of “the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules . . . .” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC , 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought “need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery ap pears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Chen- Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ( citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)). Defendant cannot claim that such questions were outside the scope of this Court’s order, as they directly relate to (1) her knowledge of individuals who provided “massage” to Epstein and (2) her knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein. Defendant’s knowledge of the individuals involved in the sex/”massages” relating to Epstein, and her knowledge about the sex/”massage” related to Epstein is precisely what this Court directed her to answer. See also, Condit v. Dunne , 225 F.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case, “Plaintiff is hereby ordere d to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far as -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 17 15 they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of plaintiff.”); Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc. , No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) (“While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants' interrogatories concerning her sexual partners . . . .”). Moreover, generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be “ limited to [issues regarding] privilege. ” Morales v. Zondo, Inc. , 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In this case, defense counsel once again ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and gave instructions directly in contravention of this Court’s Order directing Defendant to answer exactly the type of questions posed to her. In light of Defendant’s willful refusal to comply with this Court’s Order directing Defendant to answer questions related to the Court’s June 20, 2016, Order, including topics enumerated above, Ms. Giuffre also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing this motion, as well as fees and costs associated with re- taking Defendant’s deposition. CONCLUSION Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition a nd directed to answer questions regarding the topics enumerated above. Dated: July 29, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 17 16 Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202 5 5 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorse ment by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 17 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10 th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email : lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 17 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ____________________________/ DECLARATION OF MEREDITH SCHULTZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND DIRECT DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITON QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL I, Meredith L. Schultz, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1. I am a associate with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and befor e this Court pursuant to this Court’s March 28, 2016 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal. 3. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhi bit 1 are true and correct copies of Excepts from the May 18, 2016 Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhi bit 2 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 24, 2016 Deposition of Tony Figueroa. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhi bit 3 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 21, 2016 Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhi bit 4 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 10, 2016 Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 5 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the June 1, 2016 Deposition of John Alessi. 8. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of June 20, 2016 Order from Judge Sweet. 9. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 7 are true and correct copies of Excerpts from the July 22, 2016 Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 10. Attached hereto as Sealed Com posite Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Messages Involving Defendant . I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Meredith L. Schultz______________ Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: July 29, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Meredith Schultz Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202 1 1 This daytime business address is provided for id entification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10 th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email : lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Meredith L. Schultz Meredith L. Schultz Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 9UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS Page 1 ----------------------------------- -------x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff , V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------- -----------x May 18, 2016 9:04 a.m C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 91 Q. Page 30 Did you observe her to be young when you 2 met her? 3 4 5 6 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, vague as to time. THE WITNESS: All of the women were generally young. I did not know the ages of 7 really anyone, so ... 8 BY MS. MCCAWLEY: 9 Q. How many massages did Jeffrey receive on 10 average in a given day? 11 12 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation . THE WITNESS: Three a day. 13 BY MS McCAWLEY: 14 Q. Let me back up for a moment . 15 How long did you work for Jeffrey and 16 Ghislaine? 17 18 19 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading and foundation. THE WITNESS : I believe it was five years, 20 2001 to 2006. 21 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 22 Q. And how many massages did Epstein receive 23 per day on average? 24 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, foundation. THE WITNESS: Three. MAGNA8 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 91 2 3 4 5 Page 32 to object and then you can still answer. No one is going to stop you from answering. I just need to get the objection on the record, in the same way she needs to be able to talk before you. My apologies . I'm not trying to 6 cut you off, but I am supposed to get it in 7 before you answer. 8 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you why he received 10 so many massages from so many different girls? 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay. 12 BY MS. MCCAWLEY: You can answer. 13 14 Q. A. He explained to me that, in his opinion, 15 he needed to have three orgasms a day. It was 16 biological, like eating. 17 Q. 18 statement? 19 20 A. Q. And what was your reaction to that I thought it was a little crazy. And what did --do you recall what when 21 you observed the other females giving massages, do 22 you recall what they would dress like? Did they 23 wear scrubs or did they typically wear normal 24 clothes? 25 A. Normal clothes . MAGNA8 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 91 camera? 2 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading . THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 BY MS. McCAWLEY: Page 34 5 Q. Was there anything you were supposed to do 6 in order to get the camera? 7 8 9 10 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading . THE WITNESS: I did not know that there were expectations of me to get the camera until after. She had purchased the camera for me, 11 and I was over there giving Jeffrey a massage. 12 I did not know that she was in possession of 13 the camera until later. 14 She told me --called me after I had left 15 and said, I have the camera for you, but you 16 cannot receive it yet because you came here and 17 didn1t finish your job and I had to finish it 18 for you. 19 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 20 Q. And did you --what did you understand her 21 to mean? 22 A. She was implying that I did not get 23 Jeffrey off, and so she had to do it. 24 Q. And when you say 11get Jeffrey off,11 do you 25 mean bring him to orgasm? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 91 2 A. Q. Page 35 Yes Did Ghislaine ever describe to you what 3 types of girls Jeffrey liked? 4 5 A. Q. Model types. Did Ghislaine ever talk to you about how 6 you should act around Jeffrey? 7 A. She just had a conversation with me that I 8 should always act grateful. 9 Q. Did Jeffrey ever tell you that he took a 10 girl's virginity? 11 12 mine. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. He did not tell me. He told a friend of And what do you recall about that? MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay , foundation. THE WITNESS : He wanted to have a friend of mine come out who was cardio-kickboxer instructor. She was a physical trainer. And so I brought her over to the house and he told my friend Rachel that --he said, You see that girl over there laying by the pool? She was 19. And he said, I just took her virginity. And my friend Rachel was mortified. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 9Page 142 1 exposed her bra, and she grabbed it and pulled it 2 down. 3 4 Q. A. Anything else? That was the conversation that he had told 5 her that he had taken this girl's virginity, the 6 girl by the pool 7 Q. Okay. Did Maxwell ever say to you that it 8 takes the pressure off of her to have other girls 9 around? 10 11 12 13 A. Q. A. Q. She implied that, yes. In what way? Sexually. And earlier Laura asked you, I believe, if 14 Maxwell ever asked you to perform any sexual acts, 15 and I believe your testimony was no, but then you 16 also previously stated that during the camera 17 incident that Maxwell had talked to you about not 18 finishing the job. 19 Did you understand "not finishing the job" 20 meaning bringing Jeffrey to orgasm? 21 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. 22 BY MS. MCCAWLEY: 23 Q. I'm sorry, Johanna, let me correct that 24 question. 25 What did you understand Maxwell to mean MAGNA9 LEGAL SE'.RVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 9Page 143 1 when she said you hadn1t finished the job, with 2 respect to the camera? 3 4 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form. THE WITNESS: She implied that I had not 5 brought him to orgasm . 6 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 7 Q. So is it fair to say that Maxwell expected 8 you to perform sexual acts when you were massaging 9 Jeffrey? 10 11 12 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, leading, form, foundation. THE WITNESS: I can answer? 13 Yes, I took that conversation to mean that 14 is what was expected of me. 15 BY MS. McCAWLEY: 16 Q. And then you mentioned, I believe, when 17 you were testifying earlier that Jeffrey told you a 18 story about sex on the plane. What was that about? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MENNINGER: Objection, hearsay . THE WITNESS: He told me one time Emmy was sleeping on the plane, and they were getting ready to land. And he went and woke her up, and she thought that meant he wanted a blow job, so she started to unzip his pants, and he said, No, no, no, you just have to be awake for MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF AFFIDAVIT ) ) Page 157 I, , being first duly sworn, do hereby acknowledge that I did read a true and certified copy of my deposition which was taken in the case of GIUFFRE V. MAXWELL, taken on the 18th day of May, 2016, and the corrections I desire to make are as indicated on the attached Errata Sheet. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF CERTIFICATE Before me personally appeared to me well known/ known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to and before me that he executed the said instrument in the capacity and for the purpose therein expressed. Witness my hand and official seal, this day of (Notary Public) 24 My Commission Expires: 25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 9COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 2 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 8UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE: 15-cv-07433-RWS VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff , V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ___________ / DATE: TIME: PLACE: VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF TONY FIGUEROA Volume 1 of 2 Pages 1 -157 Taken at the Instance of the Defendant Friday, June 24, 2016 Commenced: Concluded: 8:59 a.m. 1:22 p.m. Southern Reporting Company B. Paul Katz Professional Center (SunTrust Building) One Florida Park Drive South Suite 214 Palm Coast, Florida 32137 REPORTED BY: LEANNE W. FITZGERALD, FPR Florida Professional Reporter Court Reporter and Notary Public Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com -(386)257-3663 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 81 Q 96 I guess my question is: Did she ever tell 2 you that she had started as a regular masseuse for 3 him and then transitioned to something other than a 4 masseuse? 5 A No She never said that it transitioned . 6 But she ended up explaining to me what had happened 7 before, so ... 8 Q What has --what is that? 9 A That her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey would 10 obviously be doing stuff, all three of them 11 together. Like I said, that they would all go out 12 to clubs to pick up girls and try and find them to 13 bring back for Jeffrey. And then she told me about 14 how, like I said, her and Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey 15 were all intimate together on multiple occasions . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q A Q A Q A Q A When did she tell you this? I'm not exactly sure on the dates. Was it while you were still together? Yes. Did you --had you met Ms. Maxwell? Yeah, I had met her a couple of times. When did you meet Ms. Maxwell? Dates, I'm unsure of. But it was pretty 24 much, like I said, at Jeffrey's house in the 25 kitchen. Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com -(386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 8182 i Foundation. Vague as to time and place. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS: 3 Q Sorry. Let me rephrase the question. 4 During this 2001 period, if you were 5 driving Virginia and another girl to the house, what 6 type of girls would you be driving? 7 8 9 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. Foundation. A Pretty much like young-looking teenager 10 girls. I mean, 16, 17. Really pretty. You know. 11 BY MR. EDWARDS: 12 Q All right. How did you know that that1s 13 what was being requested, that that age range and 14 that look and that1s what was 15 A I just assumed that that's what most guys 16 are into, you know, so ... 17 18 19 Q A Q Girls who looked like Virginia? Yeah. All right. When you would bring girls 20 over to the house, were you looking for some 21 professional masseuse or somebody with massage 22 experience? 23 A Like I said, I would just get friends that 24 I knew from school, so ... 25 Q And that's what Jeffrey wanted? Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com -(386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 8193 1 you can think to one of the occasions where you 2 brought a girl into the kitchen other than 3 Virginia Uh-huh (affirmative). 4 5 A Q and Ms. Maxwell is in the kitchen, did 6 you and this other girl that you were bringing over 7 sit there and together have this small talk with 8 Ms. Maxwell? 9 10 11 12 A Yeah. MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. Foundation . A Yes. 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 Q And how long would you and one of these 15 other girls sit there and have this small talk with 16 Ms. Maxwell? 17 18 19 A Q A No more than, like, 10 or 15 minutes . All right. And what were you waiting for? Pretty much her to take them upstairs. 20 And then I would leave. 21 Like, I would wait for them to be, like, 22 "All right. Well, we're ready." 23 And I would be, like, "All right. See you 24 later.'' And then I'd leave. And they would go do 25 whatever . Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com -(386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 81 2 3 MS. MENNINGER: Objection . Form. Foundation. A For Jeffrey. 4 BY MR. EDWARDS: 5 Q All right. Let me fix this. Ghislaine 6 when Ghislaine Maxwell would call you during the 7 time that you were living with Virginia, she would 8 ask you what, specifically? 9 10 11 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. Foundation. A Just if I had found any other girls just 12 to bring to Jeffrey . 13 BY MR. EDWARDS: 14 15 Q A Okay. Pretty much every time there was a 200 16 conversation with any of them, it was either asking 17 Virginia where she was at, or asking her to get 18 girls, or asking me to get girls. 19 Q All right. Let's go to that second 20 category you just identified, which is asking 21 Virginia to get girls. How many times were you in a 22 room where specifically Ghislaine Maxwell would ask 23 Virginia to bring girls? 24 25 A Q None that I can recall. Okay. How many times --when you say they Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com -(386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 81 2 Q 245 Okay. Any of the girls that you are aware of having gone to the house either because you 3 brought them or Virginia --as you sit here today, 4 do you believe any of them were brought over to be a 5 legitimate masseuse? 6 7 8 MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Form. Foundation. Opinion. A Nope. 9 BY MS. MENNINGER: 10 Q All right. How long after Virginia left 11 to go to Thailand did you continue to bring girls to 12 Jeffrey Epstein? 13 A Not, like, at all. Maybe, like, once. 14 Like I said, pretty much after she left and did not 15 come back, he was gone, I think, also. And then he 16 came back and was, like, "Oh, where is Virginia?" 17 And that was pretty much, like I said, he was just 18 throwing in, "Can you bring somebody by," just to 19 make it seem like he wanted me to still be around. 20 I was, like --and pretty much after she was gone, 21 that was basically it. 22 Q All right. You described that every time 23 that you would bring girls, Jeffrey Epstein would 24 pay you $200 apiece; correct? 25 A Uh-huh (affirmative) . Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com -(386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 81 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF FLAGLER 5 6 257 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 7 I, the undersigned authority, certify that TONY 8 FIGUEROA personally appeared before me on 9 July 5, 2016, and was duly sworn. 10 11 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 5th day 12 of July, 2016. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Leanne W. Fitzgerald Notary Public -State of Florida My Commission No. FF060921 Expires: February 8, 2018 Digital Certificate Authenticated By Symantec Southern Reporting Company www.Southernreporting.com -(386)257-3663 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 8EXHIBIT 6 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 21UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GUIFFRE, Plaintiff, -against - GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ----------------------------------------x APPEARA NCES: Counsel for Plaintiffs BOEIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP USDCSDNY \ I DOCUMENf ,. ELECTRONICALLY FP r·{ \; . I DOC #: --~,.,.,.,,.. J DATEFll...ED: SJ~\ 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) OPINION 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 By: Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq. Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. Counsel for Defendants HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffreys. Pagliuca, Esq. 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 21Sweet, D.J. Eight discovery motions are currently pending before this court. 1. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") has moved for an order of forensic examination, ECF No. 96. As set forth below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") or ("Defendant") has moved to compel Plaintiff to disclose alleged on-going criminal investigations by law enforcement, ECF No. 101. As set for below, this motion is denied. 3. Plaintiff has moved to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions, ECF No. 143. This motion is granted. 4. Defendant has moved to compel non-privileged documents, ECF No. 155. As set forth below, this motion is denied. 5. Plaintiff has moved for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service, ECF No. 160. As set forth below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 6. Defendant has moved to compel attorney-client communications and work product, ECF No. 164. As set forth below, this motion denied. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 217. Plaintiff has moved to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit, ECF No. 172. As set for.th below, this motion is granted in part and denied in part. 8. Plaintiff has ~oved for leave to file an opposition brief in excess of the 25 pages permitted under this Court's Individual Rules of Practice. This motion is granted. r. Prioz Pro~edings Familiarity with the prior proceedings and facts of this case as discussed in the Court's prior opinions is assumed. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 831949 (S,D.N.Y, Feb. 29, 2016); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ, 7433 ( RW S ) ( S . D . N . Y . May 2 , 2 0 1 6 } • Plaintiff filed her motion for clarification of the Court's March 17, 2016 Order anci for forensic examination on April 13, 2016. By Order dated April 15, 2016, the motion for clarification was denied on the basis that further clarification was unnecessary. Oral argument was held with respect to forensic examination on May 12, 20:!.6, at whj_ch time the matter was deemod fully submitted. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 21Defendant filed her motion to compel Plaintiff to disclose ongoing criminal investigations by lqw enforcement, or in the alternative to stay proceedingsF on April 181 2016. Oral argument was heard and the motion granted in part and denied 1n part on April 21, 2016. ?laintiff was directed to submit the relevant materials for in camera review. Plaintiff did so on April 281 2016. Plaintiff filed her motion to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions on May 5, 2016. Oral argument was held on May 12, 2016, at which time the matter was deemed fully submitted. Defendant filed her motion to compel non-privileged doc~ments on May 20, 20:6. By Order dated May 23, 2016, the motion ~as set for argument on June 2, 2016. The motion was taken on submission on that date. Defendant filed a reply on June 61 2016. Plaintiff filed her letter motion for leave to serve three depositions subpoenas by means other than personal service. By Order dated May 27, 2016, the mot~on was set for argument on June 2, 2016. The motion was taken on submissio~ on that date. 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 21Defendant filed her motion to compel attorney~client communications and work product on May 26, 2016. By Order dated May 27, 2016, the motion was set for argument on June 21 2016. The motion was taken on submission on that d~te. Defendant filed a reply on June 6, 2016 Plaintiff filed her motion to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit on May 27, 2016. By Order dated June 6, 2016, the motion was set returnable on June 16, 2016, at which time the motion was deemed fully submitted. ?laintiff filed her motion for leave to file excess pages on June l, 2016. II. Applicable Standards Rule 26 ~createfs1 many options for the district judge .. [to] manage the discovery process to facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit.n Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 1597f 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998). It ~vests the trial judge with broad discretion to tailor discover.y narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery. " Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598, 118 S. 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 21Ct. 1584, 1597, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998). The District Court may expand or limit the permitted number and time limits of depositions, direct ffthe time, place, and manner of discovery or even bar discovery on certain subjects," and may ffset the timing and sequence of discovery " Id. at 598-99; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (2) (A), Consequently, the Court has wide discretion in deciding motions to compel. See Grand Cent. P'ship. Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 488 (2d Cir.1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 states: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense­ including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. If a party objects to discovery requests, that party bears the burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Freydl v. Meringolo, 09 Civ. 07196(BSJ) (KNF), 2011 WL 256608-7, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2011). 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 21III. The Motion For an Order of Forensic Examination Is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (3) (Cl requires the parties to state their views and proposals as to preservation of electronically stored information ("ESI") and the form of production of ESI. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (3) (C). Defendant having admitted to deletion practices that indicate relevant documents and also refused to detail document search methods, good cause exists to warrant court supervised examination of her electronic devices. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part. Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present . Defendant is further directed to run mutually-agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 21IV. The Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Ongoing Criminal Investigations is Denied The public interest privilege "exists to encourage witnesses to come forward and provide information in criminal investigations carried out by [law enforcement] without fear that the information will be disclosed.n Sanchez by Sanchez v. City of New York, 201 A.D.2d 325, 326, 607 N.Y.S.2d 321 (1994). A party seeking disclosure of such information "first must demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for access" beyond "[g]eneral and conclusory allegations." Id. The Court then weighs application of the qualified privilege by balancing the need for production against the potential harm to the public from disclosure. Id. After review of the materials in camera, the qualified public interest privilege as set forth in Sanchez has been established with respect to the submitted documents. Defendant has articulated no need for the documents. Accordingly, the balance weighs in favor of the privilege, and the motion to compel is denied. To preserve the record, Plaintiff is directed to file under seal a comprehensive copy of the log and documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 21V. The Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions is Granted Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to answer uU~ ~i 1s regarding her knowlodge of adult sexual activityr which defense counsel instructed Defendant not to answer during her deposition. ~where a party objects tc a discovery requestr the objecting party bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the affidavits or offering ev~dence revealing the nature of the burden." John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 29a F.R.D. 184, 186 {S.D.N.Y. 2014} marks and brackets omitted) ~ r _r, .er naJ Defendant tas submitted that she has not put her private affairs at issue, and that s1Jch questions are . qlLy Ln -""iV··. Notwithstanding, the questions are directed to reveal relevant answers regarding Defendantrs knowledge of Plaintiff's ~!legations. That knowledge goes directly to the truth or falsity of the alleged defarr.ation, a key ele 1ierr 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 21. . Furthermore, privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in this case, drafted by Defendant . Defendant is ordered to answer questions relating to Defendant's own sexual activity (a) with or involving Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") , (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed or intended might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be, or believed might become, known to Epstein. Defendant is also directed to answer questions relating to her knowledge of sexual activities of others (a) with or involving Epstein, (b) with or involving Plaintiff, (c) with or involving underage females known to Epstein or who Defendant believed were known or might become known to Epstein, or (d) involving or including massage with individuals Defendant knew to be or believed might become known to Epstein. 1 The scope of Defendant's answers are not bound by time period, though Defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case. 1 Each of the aforementioned lists are disjunctive . 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 21VI. The Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Defendant has sought to compel the following documents: (1) attorney-client communications regarding media advice; (2) pre­ existing documents transmitted to counsel; (3) documents shared with or communicated to unidentified third parties; (4) documents primarily for the purpose of providing business advice; (5) documents subject to an unidentified common interest or joint defense protection. Plaintiff has represented that all responsive "attachments" Defendant seeks to compel have been produced . Accordingly, this request is denied. Defendant seeks to compel attorney-client communications that include "third parties" on the basis that Plaintiff's privilege log is deficient for identifying individuals as "professionals retained by attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice." A review of Plaintiff's privilege log shows Plaintiff has expressly claimed privilege, described the nature of the withheld documents, communications, and tangible things not produced, and generally logged communications in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) (5) (A) (ii). "Unless 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 21the client waives privilege; an attorney or his or her employee, or any person who obtains without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential communication made between the attorney or his or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment, shall not disclose, or be allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication." N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4503 (McKinney) (emphasis added). The conduct explicitly described by statute as privileged does not operate as waiver, and again Defendant has provided no factual basis to suggest Plaintiff has misrepresented the identity or role of the third-parties listed . Defendant's request is denied. Defendant's challenge to the common interest privilege claims is likewise unavailing. Regardless of whether Plaintiff has reflexively claimed the common interest privilege in each entry does not vitiate the otherwise applicable privilege claims made, and Defendant has provided no factual foundation to establish waiver or failure of the other claimed privileges . Finally, with respect to the media and business advice communications, Defendant has marshaled no evidence to support her speculation that the documents logged as privileged are improperly withheld other than the fact that one member of 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 21Plaintiff's legal team is an author . Plaintiff has represented to the Court and via a detailed privilege log that the communications in question are privileged. Stan Pottinger, the author in question, is a barred attorney of record in this case, incomparable to Defendant's media agent (and non-attorney) Ross Gow. That Pottinger has written non-legal material, or even whether his "primary occupation in the most recent years [is] as a novelist ," is irrelevant to whether his communication with Plaintiff as her counsel was for the purpose of providing legal advice. Similarly, Bradley Edwards, who Defendant has already challenged, is an attorney of record in this case, and Defendant has provided no evidence other than the fact of his representation of Plaintiff's non-profit to doubt that the communications logged are privileged. Having provided no grounds to doubt the sworn representations of Plaintiff's counsel, Defendant's motion to compel these communications is denied. Defendant is granted leave to refile the motions with respect to media and business advice on the basis of relevant and non-specious factual support. Court intervention should not be invoked to resolve routine discovery matters on the basis of a supposition of bad faith. Further filing of frivolous or vexatious motions lacking sufficient factual support to support a colorable argument (or 13 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 21on the basis of misrepresented or false facts or law) will be met with sanctions. VII. The Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas By Means Other than Personal Service is Granted in Part and Denied in Part Plaintiff seeks to compel subpoenas to serve Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen, and Jeffrey Epstein. The request is denied with respect to Epstein as moot. No opposition having been filed and the testimony of Marcinkova and Kellen being relevant to falsity of the defamation at issue, the motion is granted with respect to Marcinkova and Kellen. VIII. The Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product is Denied Defendant argues that "Edwards and Cassell preemptively filed an action against Dershowitz proclaiming they did not violate Rule 11 [and i]n doing so, they voluntarily put at issue and relied on: a) their good faith reliance on information communicated to them by Plaintiff, and b) their work product 14 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 21r .. . showing that their filing was reasonably investigated and substantially justified." Def.'s Reply in Supp. Mot. to Compel all Att'y-Client Comrns. and Att'y Work Product at 8-9 (Def.'s Reply on AC"). The Broward County, Florida Court ruled on this argument in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz and Defendant argues in reply that this order is non-binding, and was issued prior to Plaintiff's testimony. Id. at 1. Defendant was not a party to the Florida case. Nevertheless, Defendant's argument is nearly identical to Dershowitz's. Defendant argues Plaintiff's testimony arose after the ruling in the Florida case, however, the principle of that argument is the same: Defendant placed her attorney-client communications with Edwards and Cassell at issue by relying on the content of those communications in Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz. The Florida Court's ruling is therefore highly relevant privilege has not been waived. 2 The motion is accordingly denied. 2 The Court declines to address the choice of law issue, as application of Florida or New York at-issue doctrines are not outcome determinative in this instance and thus no determination is necessary. Compare Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 510 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ("for waiver to occur under the at issue doctrine, the proponent of a privilege must make a claim or raise a defense based upon the privileged matter and the proponent must necessarily use the privileged information in order to establish its claim or defense.") with Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C., No. 05 CIV. 15 ----------~-------Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21Jane Doe 2• ' IX. The Motion to Exceed the Ten Deposition Limit is Granted in Part and Denied in Part As of the filing of Plaintiff's reply on June 13, 2016, Plaintiff has deposed Defendant, Ms. Sjoberg, Mr. Alessi, Mr. Rodgers, and Mr. Rizzo and scheduled the depositions of Mr. Epstein, Mr. Gow,_ , Ms. Kellen, Ms. Marcinkova, Mr. Recarey, and Mr. Brunel. Plaintiff now seeks leave of the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(2) (A) (i) take three additional depositions: Mrs. Alessi, Mr. Reiter, and newly raised in Plaintiff's reply, Former President Clinton . Discovery being well under way and depositions having been scheduled for more than ten individuals, the motion is timely. "The court must grant a request to exceed ten depositions unless the additional depositions would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, the requesting party had a prior opportunity in discovery to obtain the information sought, or the burden or 8360(NRB), 2008 WL 2073934 , at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2008) ("New York courts have held that an 'at issue' waiver occurs "where a party affirmatively places the subject matter of its own privileged communication at issue in litigation, so that invasion of the privilege is required to determine the validity of a claim or defense of the party asserting the privilege, and application of the privilege would deprive the adversary of vital information."). 16 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 21expense of additional depositions would outweigh any likely benefit." In re Weatherford Int'l Sec. Litig., No. 11 CIV. 1646 LAK JCF, 2013 WL 5762923, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2013). Plaintiff proposes limiting the length of the proposed depositions to limit any undue burden that might result. Defendant argues the depositions would be unduly cumulative and duplicative This case revolves around factual issues between Plaintiff and Defendant. The testimony of Mrs. Alessi concerning relevant facts may tend to either establish or negate falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement. The limited burden of this additional deposition, further mitigated as Plaintiff proposes, is therefore outweighed by the benefit of resolving this case on the merits. The motion with respect to this additional deposition is granted. The relevance of the testimony of Mr. Reiter and President Clinton have not been adequately established. The motion as to these two depositions is denied. Defendant's request for costs and fees is denied pursuant to this Court's previous ruling with respect to costs and fees. 17 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 21• X. The Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages is Granted Plaintiff sought leave to file excess pages in response to Defendant's motion to compel attorney-client communications and work product. To the extent the motion is not moot, leave is granted. XI. Conclusion As set forth above: the motion for an order of forensic examination is granted in part and denied in part; the motion to compel to compel Plaintiff to disclose alleged on-going criminal investigations by law enforcement is denied; the motion to compel Defendant to answer deposition questions is granted; the motion to compel non-privileged documents is denied; the motion for leave to serve three deposition subpoenas by means other than personal service is granted in part and denied in part; the motion to compel attorney-client communications and work product is denied; the motion to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit is granted; the motion for leave to file an opposition brief in excess of the 25 pages permitted under this Court's Individual Rules of Practice is granted. This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 96, 101, 143, 155, 160, 164, 172r and 182. 18 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 21For purposes of managing the filings in this case, the parties are further directed to comply with the Court's Individual Rules of Practice by providing all future motion papers in their full non-redacted form, complete with related declarations and exhibits, in a single complete bound hard copy delivered to Chambers at the time of filing. All soft-copies must be provided by attachment of a single PDF in its full non­ redacted form, including all related declarations and exhibits irrespective of whether each attachment or declaration is intended to be filed under seal. Soft-copies must be provided in addition to, not in lieu of, hard-copies. This matter being subject to a Protective Order, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding redactions to this Opinion consistent with that Order. The parties are further directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion or notify the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion. It is so ordered. 19 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 21.. New York, NY June '"')..o , 2016 20 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 21COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 7 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 23Confidential Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE , Plaintiff , -against -Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL , Defendant . ----------------- -X **CONFIDENTIAL** Continued Videotaped Deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the Defendant herein , taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 575 Lexington Avenue , New York, New York, commencing July 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 1200 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026 (866) 624-6221 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 23Page 18 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential A. I think everyone here can 3 understand what intercourse is, is when you 4 have sex. I don't know how to say 5 intercourse any other way, having sex with 6 somebody. Perhaps you would like to define 7 it for me. Q. I1m trying to get your definition 8 9 right now because you are the witness. When 10 you use the term intercourse , what are you 11 referring to? 12 A. I'm referring to a penis entering 13 someone ' s vagina. 14 15 sex? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Now, have you ever engaged in oral In my life? MR. PAGLIUCA: There are specific areas that the court has allowed inquiry into, and those are delineated in the court's order of June 20th. The open-ended "Have you ever engaged in oral sex" is not part of the court's order at page 10, and the court specifically indicated that sexual activity of third parties who bear no MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 23Confidential Page 20 1 G. Maxwell -Confidential 2 anyone in any of Mr. Epstein 's five homes 3 that you have identified? 4 5 6 7 A. Q. A. Q. Yes. With whom? Mr. Epstein . Did you ever have oral sex with 8 anyone in any of Mr. Epstein 's five homes 9 that you've identified other than 10 Mr. Epstein? 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA : I'm going to instruct you not to answer, unless you tie it to a specific individual related to this case per the court's order. MR. BOIES: I think the court's order specifically permits this question with respect to occasions related to this case. If you instruct her not to answer, all you1re going to do is bring her back. That's up to you. MR. PAGLIUCA : It's up to you as the questioner, Mr. Boies. The court's order says the defendant need not answer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 23Confidential Page 78 1 G. Maxwell -Confidential 2 Johanna? 3 4 A. Q. I would not know. I would say no. Did you engage in sexual activities 5 with Johanna? 6 A . No. 7 Q. Do you know how Johanna came to 8 know Mr Epstein? 9 A. I met her at her university and she 10 came to answer phones. 11 Q. When you say she came to answer 12 phones , where? 13 A. In Palm Beach. 14 Q. At Mr. Epstein 's home in Palm 15 Beach? 16 17 A. Q. Yes. So is it fair to say that Johanna 18 was initially hired to answer telephones , 19 according to your testimony? 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: This has already been testified to Mr. Boies. repeating testimony now. We are MR. BOIES: I think in the context of the witness 1 answers , these are fair questions. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 23Page 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential Now, I've asked you before , if you want to instruct her not to answer, if you want to go to the judge, we are happy to do that, but I would suggest , in the interest of moving it along, that you stop these speeches . MR. PAGLIUCA: You are not moving it along is the problem , so maybe we should call the court and get some direction here, because I am not going to sit here and rehash the testimony we already gave. MR. BOIES: That's fine. THE VIDEOGRAPHER : The time is 10:51 a.m. and we are going off the record. (Whereupon , an off-the -record discussion was held.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER : The time is 10:56 a.m. and we are going back on the record. This begins DVD No. 3. MR. BOIES: We have just had a call with Judge Sweet's chambers, Judge Sweet is not available and his chambers MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 23Page 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential or argue this in front of Judge Sweet. But I will simply start referring you back to the transcript and instructing the witness not to answer when I think we are getting into some things that have been asked and answered already . MR. BOIES: Exactly the procedure that I have proposed from the beginning . If you think a question is out of bounds , instruct not to answer and we 13 will then let the judge decide it. 14 BY MR. BOIES: 15 Q. How did it happen , Ms. Maxwell , 16 that Johanna, who had been hired to answer 17 the phones, ended up giving massages to you 18 and Mr. Epstein? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to instruct you not to answer the question . This has been previously, the subject of your former deposition, it doesn't fall into any of the categories ordered by the court, and so you don't need to answer that. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVrCES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 23Page 82 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential Q. Was Johanna paid for the massages 3 that she gave you? 4 A. I didn't pay her, so I believe she 5 was paid. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Who paid her? Q. A. I don't know who paid her. MR. PAGLIUCA : Again, you've already answered that there was no sexual activity between yourself and Mr. Epstein related to these massages . That's record testimony today. That's within the scope of the court's order. The rest of this is outside the scope of the court's order, and I instruct you not to answer. MR. BOIES : You are taking the position that as long as she said says that a massage did not involve sexual activity, we cannot ask about massages . That's your view? MR. PAGLIUCA : questioning , yes. On this particular 24 BY MR. BOIES: 25 Q. Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 23Page 83 1 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential 2 massages that she gave Mr. Epstein? 3 4 5 6 7 MR. PAGLIUCA: You just asked this question , and I told her not to answer. I will tell her not to answer again for the same reasons Q. Do you know how much Mr. Epstein 8 paid Johanna to give massages? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR, PAGLIUCA: Same instruction to the witness. Why do you believe this is within the scope of the court1s order? MR. BOIES: Because of the court1s reference to massages , and because I think how much a girl who was hired to answer the phone was paid to give a 11massage11 goes to whether there actually was or was not sexual activity involved . MR. PAGLIUCA: The witness has testified there wasn't. MR. BOIES: Perhaps it will surprise you, I think it should not, that I do not believe in my deposition I need to simply accept her characterization without cross-examination. Now, that's MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 23Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential something the judge can decide , but a question as to how much this young girl was being paid for a "massage ", I think goes directly to the issue of sexual activity . MR. PAGLIUCA: Here is the problem, Mr. Boies, at the first deposition, there were very limited instructions not to answer and the witness was not told not to answer questions about how much people were paid or not paid or any of those subject matters. The witness was only instructed not to answer about sexual activity concerning adults in the home. None of this came up during the deposition, and you just don't get a chance to redo the deposition because you feel like you want to. So the judge1s order is in the context of the instructions to the witness not to answer in the first deposition, which is simply sexual activity involving adults, which was the MAGN-A9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 23Confidential Page 89 1 G. Maxwell -Confidential 2 were sex toys or devices used in sexual 3 activities in Mr. Epstein 's property in the 4 Virgin Islands? 5 6 7 8 MR. PAGLIUCA : and foundation . No. Objection to form A. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein 9 possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual 10 activities? 11 12 13 14 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation . No. Objection to form A. Q. Did you ever assist Mr. Epstein in 15 obtaining sex toys or devices used in sexual 16 activities? 17 18 19 20 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation No. Objection to form A. Q. In the 1990s and 2000s, did you 21 ever have possession of or use sex toys or 22 devices used in sexual activities? 23 24 A. Q. No. Did you, in the 1990s and 2000s, 25 engage in sexual activities other than MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 23Confidential Page 90 1 G. Maxwell -Confidential 2 intercourse with women other than what you 3 have testified to already? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: First of all, I object to the form and foundation and it's also outside of the court's order because it's unclear as you question, and I specifically direct you to the last line of the court's order: Sexual activity of third parties who bear no knowledge or relation to key events , individuals or locations in this case. MR. BOIES: This simply asks yes or no, and I think that it is an appropriate question given some of the witness ' prior answers, but there is no point in debating it, because if you instruct her not to answer, the judge will decide whether it's appropriate . MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm just telling you if you tie it to something in this case, I will let her answer . MR. BOIES: Are you instructing her not to answer? MR. PAGLIUCA : Yes, unless you tie MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 23Page 99 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential A. I don't recall ever hearing such a 3 thing. 4 5 6 Q. A. Q. You know Mr. Les Wexner , correct? I do. Do you know whether or not Maria 7 Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner 's property in 8 Ohio? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Can you tell me how that relates to this order, counselor? MR. BOIES: Yes, I think it goes directly to the sexual activity related to Maria Farmer and what Mr. Epstein was doing with Maria Farmer . Again, you can instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA : I'm trying to understand why you are asking these questions before I MR. BOIES: I'm asking these questions because these are people who not only have been publicly written about in terms of the sexual activity that they were put into in connection with Mr. Epstein, but the person who MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 23Page 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential wrote about them is somebody who talked to this witness about it, and I think that this is more than easily understood cross-examination . MR. PAGLIUCA: Your question was, do you know whether or not Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner 's property in Ohio. MR. BOIES: Yes. And if you let her answer, you will see where it leads. If you won1t let her answer, the judge is going to determine it. And I just suggest to you that you stop these speeches and stop debating, because you are not going to convince me not to follow-up on these questions . If you can convince the court to truncate the deposition, that's your right, but all you're doing is dragging this deposition out. MR. PAGLIUCA: You have the opportunity to give me a good faith basis why you are asking these questions MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 23Page 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential MR. BOIES: faith basis. I have given you a good MR. PAGLIUCA: You haven't. MR. BOIES: Then instruct not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: I am giving you the opportunity to say why you are asking the question, and why I1m telling her not to answer and I am entitled to know that MR. BOIES: You are not entitled to know why I'm asking the question. You are only entitled to know that it relates to the subject matter that I am entitled to inquire about, and I don't think the judge is going to think that, you know, where Mr. Epstein shipped Maria Farmer off to is outside the scope of what I1m entitled to inquire about. THE WITNESS: Can we take a break? MR. BOIES: Only if you commit not to talk to your counsel during the break. THE WITNESS: That's ludicrous . MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 23Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Page 154 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential Q. Insofar as you were aware, did 3 Virginia Roberts ever have a male friend that 4 visited her at the Epstein residences? 5 6 A. I don't recall ever seeing a man with Virginia. I believe she had a fiance 7 that I was aware of, I think, but that's all. 8 Q. When were you aware that Virginia 9 Roberts had a fiance? 10 A. I can't say I became aware from 11 reading all this stuff, or I was aware of it 12 13 at the time I don't know. Q. Did you ever meet Virginia Roberts ' 14 f iance? 15 A. I don't think I ever did. I don't 16 recall meeting any men with Virginia. 17 18 19 20 Q. A. Q. Do you know I never heard that name before. Have you ever heard the name of 21 Carolyn Andriamo, A-N-D-R-I-A-M-0? 22 23 24 25 A. I don't recollect that name at all. MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Boies, those names are on Exhibit 26, which we have already gone over and she said she MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 23Page 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential didn't recognize those people , so now we are just repeating things that we went over. MR. BOIES: I am in the context of seeing if I can refresh her recollection, because these are women that Mr. Figueroa, who she also does not recall, brought over to Mr. Epstein 's residences , and I also want to make a very clear record of what her testimony is and is not right now. Again, you can instruct her not to answer if you wish. MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm trying to get to nonrepetitive questions here. You basically asked the same question three times. Then we get a pile of notes that get pushed up to you, you read those. Then you ask those three times, and then we go to another question. So it's taking an inordinately long amount of time and it shouldn't. MR. BOIES: I think that is a demonstrably inaccurate statement of LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 23Page 156 1 2 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential what has been going on, and I 3 4 attribute --maybe I shouldn1t attribute it at all. 5 But if you want to instruct not to 6 answer , instruct not to answer. If you 7 don1t, again, all I will do is request 8 that you cease your comments. I can1t 9 do that. All I can do is seek sanctions 10 afterwards . 11 BY MR. BOIES: 12 13 14 15 Q. A. Q. A. Ms. Maxwell . Mr. Boies. What? I1m replying . You said Ms. 16 Maxwell , I said Mr. Boies. 17 Q. Do you have a question ? 18 A. No. 19 Q. I have a question . 20 A. I'm sure you do. 21 Q. During the time that you were in 22 the property or at the property that 23 Mr. Epstein has in the Virgin Islands , were 24 you aware of Mr. Epstein getting any 25 massages? MAGNA& LEGAL. SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 23Page 174 1 2 3 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential court's order. Q. In terms of preparing for this 4 deposition, what documents did you review? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PAGLIUCA : To the extent I provided you with any documents to review, I will tell you that's both it's privileged and I instruct you not to answer. Q. Did your lawyer provide you with 11 any documents to review in preparation for 12 this deposition that refreshed your 13 recollection about any of the events that 14 occurred? 15 16 17 18 MR. PAGLIUCA : question . No. You can answer that A. Q. How many documents did your lawyer 19 provide you with? 20 21 22 A. Q. MR. PAGLIUCA: One, I believe . One document . You can answer . Was that a document 23 that had been prepared by your attorney , or 24 was it a document from the past? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: I will tell you not MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 23Page 177 1 2 3 4 5 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential MR. PAGLIUCA: Don't answer that question. order. It1s outside the court's Q. In 2005, were you aware of any 6 effort to destroy records of messages you had 7 taken of women who had called Mr. Epstein in 8 the prior period? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: Don't answer that question. order. It's outside the court's MR. BOIES: I said I would give you a break every hour It1s been an hour. MR. PAGLIUCA : Do you want a break or do you want to keep going? THE WITNESS: Keep going. MR. BOIES: What I told you before , you asked for a break every hour I am happy to give you a break at a fixed time. What I1m not happy to do is interrupt a chain of examination . So if you want a break now, we will take a break now. If you don 1t want a break now, we will not break for another hour. MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 23Page 184 1 2 3 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential Q. A. Next one is Heidi -- Tony is Virginia's guy that you 4 5 6 asked me about I don't know Tony. Q. A. I asked you about a Tony Figueroa Right, I don't know him, so I1m 7 guessing , I don It know him. 8 Q. Nicole? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Colleen? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Crystal? 13 A. I don't know who these people are. 14 Q. Was there a list that was kept of 15 women or girls who provided massages? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: This has been previously deposed on. This is not part of the court's order, I will tell her not to answer. MR. BOIES: You are going to tell her not to answer a question that says was there a list of women or girls who provided massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: She has been previously deposed on this subject. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 23Page 185 1 2 3 4 5 6 Confidential G. Maxwell -Confidential MR. BOIES: I think this is squarely in the court's order, but if you instruct her not to answer, you instruct her not to answer. MR. PAGLIUCA: We'll find out. 7 BY MR. BOIES: 8 Q. I take it you don't know the ages 9 of any of these people? 10 11 A. The ones that I did recognize were roughly my age. The ones I don't know, I 12 wouldn 't have a clue. 13 Q. Did you, or insofar as you are 14 aware anyone , maintain a list of females that 15 provided massage services to Mr. Epstein at 16 his residences? 17 18 19 20 21 MR. PAGLIUCA: and foundation. Objection to form You can answer if you can A. Q. I don't know anything about a list. Let me go back to Exhibit 28. I 22 want to go down this list, excluding 23 Mr. Epstein himself, and just ask you a 24 series of the same essential questions about 25 each one. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 23Page 197 1 2 3 4 5 Confidential CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that GHISLAINE 6 MAXWELL , was duly sworn by me and that the 7 deposition is a true record of the t~stimony 8 given by the witness . 9 10 11 12 13 14 Les Registered Professional Reporter Dated: July 22, 2016 15 (The foregoing certification of 16 this transcript does not apply to any 17 reproduction of the same by any means, unless 18 under the direct control and/or supervision 19 of the certifying reporter .) 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAGNA& LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 23COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 8 (File Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2·•. -,·-::-~"': 11~~·--."':~.? 4"' 4lv~ f?.qo&°' dQe..'5 rto-t fle4 ~ ~\e.a.x-r~~p~~Of'l . WIJ. ~ ' SA02969 -.: •::. -·: I GIDFFRE001523 i L j I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2IMPORTANT MESSAGE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO see YOU WILL CALL AGAIN . WANiS TO SEE YOU RUSH ,RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED 1184 J IMPORTANT fVl.ESSAGEJ FOR &-zt.-/ A.M. OATE ________ TIME ___ P.M. M-.,------,----------- OF ______________ _ • PHONE-==,.,,=,-----===------=-==~ AREl,.COOE HUMBER" EXTENSION . TELEPHONE;D PLEASl;.CAU:. . :CAME.TO.SEEYOU WILL CALL AGAIN : WANTS to SEE'. YOU RUSH RETURNS) Y.OUA CALL • SPECIAL ATTENTION ---------------'\ I lfy1PORTANT .MESSA<:iE ·, FOR '\-£ ; / _,,, 2 F _,,., ~ ,,. • ?Q A_M, DATE 0. 1 __. ,fr.,. r TIME 19 · ; P.M. M 01ilQ k / /t £ {RJ·S": £ tr OF ___ _ PHONE-,AA=EA,.,..COO!:i= EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTl_\)N MESSAGE ____________ _ /2,1/7 SIGNeo,_ .... _..___;...__ _______ --;-;;;tt=e,c • j I'M~_9RTANT -~ESSACi·E f: .r·c • CAME TO SEE YOU ""1, • • ~ . . W..wfS TO SEE YOU • :RETtIBNEO YOiJA CALL MESSAGE l}J {J-,.J ·fj •• IF ~f.{l Z • 1. A.M. TIME ! 'Q CV P..M. ~LL CALLAGAfN • ' RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION SAO01456 GIUFFRE00 1427 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2oF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBIL-------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Wit.I. C.ALLAGAIN WANTS 10 SEE YOU RUSH RETUANED YOUR nAI.L SPECIAl ATTEfllTlON SIGNED: ~ 1184 : [. IMPORTANT MESSAGE]· FOR CY?tf c''J)S/.e;:'h PHONE/ A.M. P.M. MOBILE----~-=--------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANT~ TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- ctrGNED -11&4 -· •• . ' .. ·{ IMPORTANT MESSAGE l FOR ,fa--(/ M OF ______________ _ PHONE/ /~'/~ / . < ( MOBILE_1.._. ____________ _ • TELEPHONED ;J< Pt.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOIJ WILL. CALL AGAIN W~NTS TO SEE 'YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE---~--------- SIGNED a, 1184 .·,,. J IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR 01~ f'h & ..X t;,. (/ DATE 1//? J/Of7 TIMES'"-' ."J 7 ~: M--''--------------- ·of ______________ _ PHONE/ M98ILE-·.------------- / PLEASE CALL CAME i'O SEE YOU Wilt CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED VOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTEITTION MESSAGE------------- ; '• ,. SA02827 SIGNED n 1fa: : / • I: GIUFFRE001451 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I ,. . FOR ., OF __ PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANT$ TO SEE YOU RETIJRNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ SIGNED &t- 1184 . [_..IMPORTANT MESSAGE I CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS-1'0 SEE YOU RUSH RETUANeo YOUR CALL SPE<;,rAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------~ .. r SIGNED SIi •• ' a..:!::=.::::;::;;;===;;;;===;;;;;;=;;;;;::;;;;;;.;;·t!!!t84~ '.:-.l -... ···~'' -I IMPO~TANT MESS~GE I • FOR M:$ I MAX~ E: u .... DATE 041 ;)S J ~ 4 11ME 6 • 55 M6, N ECOL€ Hf.5SE ·TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SE!: YOU WILL CAllAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTEITTION MESSAGE a. 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE fOR___."-""'-',__._,_~---------.---A.M. OATE . M C:lhislai oe TIME \ PJA. ·, OF _____________ _ PHONE/' MOBILE ____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE you RUSH ·RETURNED YOUR-CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION j>l'\\ro 'sxAs.h • \:t-c\c'-Lj \7:i ?\-c,'1 ns (C. cwv\ · 00 9 h:;:c:M) oc LQ "' ... -STbtf w,~"' tt"'s\c,i Qt SAO2830 GillFFRE001454 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2-----------· •• ---------- ..... I iMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR /JS.f J 1· ! 6j- . DATE f~t M~ E 1)$1'2.ll TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED a 1184 ·• ., ' -~:, .:- .• j ., IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR HI?.. t'. (1;. /..f t N DATE TIME g. Jo ~:J: M .S: A-1e._,4,-If .. OF PHONE/ . MOBILi:: TELEPHONED V PLEASECAU CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION ME!jGE 1LL c A-L..L --Enc.. tc SIGNED a 1184 :: TELEPHONED· V PLEASECALl v CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN wmrs TO SEE YOU RUSH RETUANED YOUfi CAIL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGf ___________ _ GA l..Le,D SA02833 SIGNED -1f GIUFFRE001457 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2I IMPORTANT M-ESSAGE I I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I Fo; \ f?tt cf' _u --u A.M. DATE 11ME P.M. FOR 61o£o6L o.+ D'11'FEF6~ \\·1' I< f;, f'.S 1t 1gME 7 . .f4 • ~ • M Cth1s)c~i r\:e • OF c. a 1 \Ji r:.\ M OF tv\.5. M-A:XW E-l L PHONE/ PHONE/ MOBILE • MOBIL" TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAMf: TO SEE YOU WIU CALL AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO S.EE YOU RUSH WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH REllJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE MESSAGE\\ C P.LLE.D J)Lf 1 Nor VE:.R"I i'·MPO-R..1tl\fJ ll SIGNED a .1184 t SIGNED a. 1184 ' l . . . . . ... ~.. . - . . . -~ .. --·-. . ... . .. ..,. . . . . .. ... ·-···· ........ -' ... . .. . . ...... . . .. 1 I IMPORTANT M.ESSAG~ I. ~R E ~-rE. 1 N. , TELEPHONED v' PLEASE CALL v CAME lp SEE YOU __ WILL CALLAGAIN WANT$ TO SEE YOU ROSH· -3 RSl'URNEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION C..ALL f>ftl...j:. I I MESSAG~ •• ! ,; \ '•! SIGNED: ~ a 1184 I ,•, . J f: IMPORTANT .MESSAGE I 'FOR • M f<, • . E. PS ,E. t l\l DATE G/(,/04 ~ • TIME S-.s1 ~: ~:.. ::fON"/ PHONE/ MOBILE CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE: YOU RUSH l'IETUANED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENflON MESSAGE ·~ WllL BE-Co.MlN6 ·AT H , _. H A.M.:~~ODt\ 'i. .... .. .. :-:-: ... T..~ .... ~ ";.. .. ,. • ,- SA02836 a ·SIGN~ 1184. GillFFRE001460 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2! ; A.M. __ .___P.M. M _____________ _ OF __ _ PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANrS TO SEE VOU REiURNEO YOUR CALI. PlEASECALL Will CAl.:L AGAJN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ -, ..... SIGNED a 1184 ~ • • • • • • • • -• • • • • - • - • I n • • SAGE FOR A,,l\'lt DATE _______ TIME-''· ___ P.M. M _____________ _ OF-------------- PHONE/ MOBIL<-------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN • WANrS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALI. SPECIAL ATTENTION .• SIGNED B/IJ • tl84 I l I IMPORTANT MJ;:SSAGE I· SA~ A f/ FOR-~__,__,__.......,. _______ ,--__ DATE OF WANTS TO SEE YOU · ·RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED {{k... WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ,. t11l4 :.IMPORTANT MESSAGE A.M. ___ F'.t.l. M-----------~~ _,,.t __ OF-H--.. :?---~-/24~~-=-+-o/ _/ - PHONc/ MOBILE------------- :· TELEPHONED •i.-1iLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPl:CIAL ATTENTION MESSA.GE------------ SA02837 SIGNED GIUFFRE001461 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR 1-j~--£. :f· 1,c:.,f r/. i .-! 1..( • DATE :;: '1 ·::,. eo 4-TIME ··_;, .-~·-f ~ TELEPHONED • • Pl.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CAU... AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETIJl'lNED YOUR CALl ' SPECIAL ATTENTION ·MESSA.GE-----------c ft'(.:(_ tp .: SIGNED : j 1-MPORTANT MESSAGE I f-OA Stt~ AH • DATE I I q ] O 1i"' TEI..EPHONEO CAME TO SEE. YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RNEDYOURCALL PLEASE CALL WILL CAU...AGAJN RUSH· SPECIAL ATTENTION fL. · -Litt L 1 Jf f: It /2}; 1/l:­ Jt ttsnf .. SIGNED· , aa {184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE TELEPHONED .,,.,-PLEASE CALL , __ CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAlN WANTS TO SEE VOU RUSH RETURNED·VOUR CALL • SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE----------- : .! SIGNED . ' : .. a ll!ld j IMPORTANT JYI.ESSAG~ ( FOR·''\ NI!. . F /.s. J E A .,../ -. -, OATc( in TIME···bJ.£ ·_ef M $ MAY t:se.lL i OF ;> .. ;\i\ j{t..J\/ Pl-:!ONEt-- . MOBIL~.._ _____________ _ TELEPHONED V PLEASE CALL ~AME_ TO SEE YOU Wfl.L CALL AGAIN· WANTS TO see YOU RUSH .F.IETlJRNED YOUR CAil. SPECIAL ATTENTION ____ ..... SA02840 SIGNED a . 1184 GIUFFRE0O 1464 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2[ IMPORTANT MESSA.GE I • •• J'Yf'.l /• t "" I FOR-_._-'--'--'--------:----- ~;..,.:;.._-'---'-. -TIME b -. .3(3.: ~ TELEPHONED . , v Pl.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU ~LL CALLAGA1N • RUSH YOUR CALI. SPEC1At,. ATTENTION MESSAGE p L C. l\"L L j r r, u r: __ '!:> SIGNED ...... _,. a 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE· FOA__..,:.:...:....o.~-/fi=~~/_'1--_· _____ _ DA~ TIME f C • 3l-::_ M _ _ ,·· TELEPHONED v PL.EASECAU. v CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SE:E YOU RUSH ·RETlfANEO YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTl:NTION [. 1 • ' } IMPORTANT MESSAG~-, FOR 'lf{R . Ff'.g?Ei/V CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------'- SIGNED a 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR-,.:.,.:.:....!..l.__-=.:...='--'--"""-'~----- ·OATF 7 q / 01 TIMI= 11 ~so ~ M OF PHONE/'. MO~=--------""---- . TELEPHONED i.,' CAME TO SEE YOU SA02841 GIUFFRE001465 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2..; ... \I .... "' ~ , ~ } ~ :'! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !! ~ ~ ~- ~ .13 I] (§ !"" ~ ~ ~ !J ~ ~ [J !.9 '·" I.~ I~ ,~ !. >-' f 1, I.~- 1...~~ I A= I .,-M .a IMPORTANT MESSAGE I I ~ -~-'£"~':°'}..-..,,--·@~'' FOR '-j;; .. ._.'!ft::;/-·~ .. ·-?:+=·--2...::-, .".'. ·l '.\ • • . -.f ~ ,, .,.... .- , . . -· ., .1 . -q ~ . , . . · . r . . A.M. DATE :' ·-~ ' , ... '· :tiMli? I ' P.M. M , OF I _ .... PHONE/'" t··-" .(.:- . --·· \ J '< • l--. -~-·,. • , ,Jt:::-1 \.-. j""' ·j r . / ._, '-.:, L. _, MOBILE ' TELEPHONED _ .. , .... PLEASECAU. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU ---RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ~- ' . SIGNED ~ 1184 f IMPORTANT M,ESSAGEt FOR !H ii/ "".;:.-•r' .,,.:.:._z· ,.~-1 • ,;' ' . '· •. (· A.M. DATE TIME P.M. ' , ' ; '. --\·.A !, M .• . ~ r- --t OF.....: PHONE/ /:t . \ , .. ., .-....... ~-....... MOBIi~ f· -~-----· ~·-· I ~ I TELE~ONED l ... P'EASE~LL ·---f. , ,. I ·w1l...LCALLAGA1~'. i CAME TO SEE YOU ! WANTS TO SEE Y0U :RUSH . . AETURNl;0 YOUR CALL . ·SPEtlALATTENTION .. MESSA~E r 1r--e !fJ ! iJ s e.~ j o--r,..\ l -·[' 7: -;:z,u-~ ()q _,I SIGNED m 1184 TELl:PHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALI.. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAU SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ~h.e· _ s~d,.-"~\ .-1[ 't:~k-~-­ ~ .. d~--., ~-· • •. h.,./ • ·, SIGNED &: 1184 IMPORTANT fy\ESSAG~ {-,.-._ ·-_.QF ______________ _ ··PHONE/ ,MOBILE----~--------- • :: 'f$t:.El';'HONED •. ~>.ME TO SEE YOU '. WANTS TO SEE YOU .•, . ·: RETURNEO YOUR_ CALI, StGNEO PlEAS~CALL Wll:L CALL AGAIN RUSH ·SPECIAL ATTENTION -SAO01465 GIUFFRE001436 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2' ii ; ; ~ ~ ; i ~ ~ ~ :> = = , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !J ~ .. • $ •. , ~--~; !J J!J ~ ~ 8 ~- ~ ~ ~s ~i ~~ !eta I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR -J 1;. i:::F .-~~-c·1 M TELEPHONED "" -PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU W~LL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION ' ' s1aNEo rsH· r, k tV'' ~~.-;..,_;: a 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I TEl£PHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE,YOU RETURNED voui:i CIU.l. 1 • PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH Sf'EC1Al. ATTENTION .. • . • ·•~ ~ t l "\ & 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I M ______________ _ TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED PLEASE CALL Wlll CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ~ 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE] FOR MR· tP51t:.1"1 -1)1,~i,·-4 I • ·•h'-~ A:M. DATE t , ~ J • ~_. - TIME P.M. M OF f\-l:, Ml\ '/\'Jc.LL PHONE/ MOBIL!': TELEPHONED :.~ PLEASE CALL ,,, .... • CAf\,tE TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAlN • WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED VO"UR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ,, "\€.Lt... 1-l \M -Y VOUA CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE_.._._._ • .._.,.___...., __ . _ _,.(.L..A ..... ll..,.£...,f)"-1-. __ _ '.SH£. t~Ji.~ An J l::\E 'Nfv SIGNED a 11&4 J tMpORTAN-~M'ESSAGE J-· 'i:l • FOR \ g l-- j o.e.TE O ~-.Au~ PHONE/ ..... ", .. MQBI.__ ___ __,...,_ ______ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU' ' WIU. CALLAGAfN WANTS. TO S~E YOU RUSH RETUBNED \'OUR CAll. SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE----------=----- J?e;1Jitro- y-::,.1 r. • r :oo· SIGNED_._ SA02848 a· .::_ 118'4 OF ~ \,:·. I -I ) . ·J :· I . I -., PHONE/ r , , _;.1 1' MOBILE .. TELEPHO"(ED PLEASECAL.L. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAlN WANTS TO SEE YOU RtJSH RETURNEO YOUR CALL • SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE SfGNED a 1184 :: J IJ\'.'.lP(?.WANT MESSAGE I =~A~E M G.h:.1·W-o1t1 JL Of _____________ _ r.'6°J~v' TELEPHONEO PLEASE CALL CAME TO see YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETORNEO YOUR CALL SPECfAL ATTENTIQli MESSAGE $\It • LE.. 1 _ L/V.:F...y 6-o 1~f ::w1..y -~uH/T 1..-;i f'"8 Pe.:\~B-:J GIUFFREOO 14 72 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 51Ja Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2[! t:. r.: Ii t! f! f! t! t: ;-.0 :rl!l lt.e 'I ... :!:> J.~ J.~ ·1 ;1·-~ •· !It 1!.t :·t -. ~- J'-~ J,~ l~· l~- ~~ ~e lil" ~i ~ . . fl ' i I ' ~·- I ' i I IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR :... DATE M OF RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION / MESSAGE----------~-/ , SIGNED 1 .• ·-. $; 1184 IMPORTANT M_ESSAGE fOR_-'-,l r---,:,,-;.:.IU..;.." .............,,_' ?~.--=·. ~>4"""'-~-- A.M. DATE _______ TIM'E.,.......,..... __ P.M. M-~~.........,__---;,.-~"'-"·; ,r;...c.,,.t~J· ~k:.....-. - WANTii TO ~EE YOU FIETURNl:D YOUR CALL M~E­·r0e RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION .•I ·. ] . '. (_IMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR ;£- . •. • P.) • :;:;, A. . -..---- ......... --TIMFJ • .. ~~- TELEPl:IONB> CAME TO SEE VOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED PI.E/\SECAU. WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 :'J • • • "N.1-ESSAG . . ,OF--------'------ PHONE/ M08,u:;.. _____________ _ Ta.EPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO.SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURN,EO YOUR CALL SPECfAI. ATTENTION ~- a'_; ~Sl::;:GN:,::E~D;;;;· __ • =========;;;;;;.l1!ll184~ • ·;-SIGNED __ ,, 1' I SAO2850 a: -1·. GIUFFRE001474 I l I l i i j j l I j r Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 21.- ' [1MPORTAN:f MESSAGE I FOR ;59{S-&. l • DAlE \ 1-t~ -O\.J TlME .1. ~-:t-O M OF_ PHONE! _MOBILE_ . CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL MESSAGE SIGNED WILL 9AU. AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 .I IM-~ORTA.NT MESSAGE I :1~ CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURN~OYOUR CALL · SPECIALATTENTION MESSAGE----.---~-----,-- SIGN ••'• a 1184 · J . ~: i,J. T IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR-=-..p..-1-=.~~==~~) _____ _ -~ '~:;::.,_~ OATE.(.!p.:s..ii~::...:::~,.___j_-11M~. :.}ro.dt 5a.'ta/(j P.HONEJ MOBI~----------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO.SEE YOU RUSH .. -l'tETIJANl;D 'r'.()UR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION CAME-TO SEE YOU WILL C~LAGAIN WANTS TO SEE \IOU RUSH . RETIJRN!g) V0IJR"CAI.L . ~PEClALATTENTJON MESSAGE----------,---- SIGNED SA02939 -1184 GIUFFRE001493 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2r ' TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will. CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSI-I 'RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SY\ee..r·e c::,e,lA a 1lll4 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR _ __,_-1-:.-='--'hol...11-~:::._.:_' _____ _ DATE----1-:E,,,f.....1.t:::1.J.~=t....­ 4~'2u M .,s, Of _ _..,_ ___________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TaEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN . . • '~ANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION ME~SAGE------------- SIGNED • 1184 . . .... . -. --·· •,~• .t ··-... -·-..... --....... ---. -...... ' .............. -. ' ' .. -.. ··l·tMPORTANT MESS.AGE l" FOA--'-'~Y-..--,....._'-;i~·-·."'£.......c..-.~•-------­ DATE--i.J!..+-!..Ll::l.f-1.L,.;;:ll-­ M ~ OF------=---------- PHONE/ M091 TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS ro SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WILL CAU.AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION i -; 'i . I ■.:ivlPORTANT tylESSAGE· ., • A.M. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU AIJSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION • MESSAGE------------- SA02938 GIUFFRE001492 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2) IMPORTANT MESSAGE I 'IJ.. ~ r,, FOA---~~~:;:::,_~1'4:::.i..:::2.-- ____ _ TELEPHONED f'LEASECAlL CAME TO SEE YOU WIUCALLAGAIN WPJffS TO SEE YOU RUSH ReTIJRNEO YOUR~ SPECIALATTa,rr!ON SIGNED IMPORTANT MESSAGE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO·SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS :rP SE.E YOU RUSH· RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION• MESS~GE------------' , . SIGNEQ a 1184 ' -,. ·•:,; ' ,. .! ,. I; TELEPHONED PU:ASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU • WILL CALL AGAIN WANTSTO~EEYOU ~USH' RETURNED YOUR CALL Sf'ECIALATTElfrlON MESSAGE------------ ............ .. ·-· --······ ,.. ... -· .... ····-••.-•·· ... -·•'"'• ---·-... -................... . , IMPORTANT MESSAG'E DATE__.-~,_..,_ _____ _ g.'cc) M J--~ OF_....,,.... ___________ _ PHONE/ MO~·u:_' ___________ _ TELEPHONED.· PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAl.:.L:'AGAJN WANTS TO SEE YOU .RUSH RETIJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENlJON MESSAGE ~ S~ro vV~u czi\~ ~-<-\l SA02943 ~5f;p\ a,, SIGNED 1184 ':, ' GIUFFRE001497 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2J IMPORTANT MESSAGE I ' . FOR ::J ,::f_·: ' ,...,,, TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN , WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH • ! • -----RETURNED YOUR CALL '$PEdlALA1TENTION I l MESSAGE------------ !' I i §? \ Q '2 .,S G ge,IA. Y\-1 !9 SIGNED -1184 I· IMPORTANT MES~AGE I : FOR TELEPHONEO PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATIEITTION MES~E------------ SIGNED a U84 j 1MPORTANT MESSAGE ( FOR • OF _____________ _ .PHONE/ MOBI~------------ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN· WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH •• AETUFINE;DYOURCAt.t: •• ·SPECMl:ATTEt.mON MESSAGE-,-.------------ d~Q;~t! ccdL SIGNED a· 1184 -~--------------PHONE/ MOB~-----------------.---- "TELEPHONED PLEASE·_<;;ALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO see YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAlL SPECIAL ATTEt.mON . . . ti SA02949 -SIGNED_ -----==;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;::::;;;;;,.!1~18:.,4 GIUFFRE001503 I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2~ ~ ~- 4-4 4). ~ 4 :;f. 4). ~ :a ~ ~-- ~' ~., ~'. ~ j a a(· al ·, .. 1· IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALI.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH. RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------Pl t::ef J f' I call J,,,r SIGNED ·• 1184 f IMPORT-A-NT MESSAGE J-"·. FOR ,:. .' ·•:.:; • 'l irtJ ' ttl • A,M .• IME;Vi•tV-~'. . :· CAME TO SEE YOU • Wlri-'CAU. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETUF.INED YOUR CALL , SPECIAL ATTENTION . .',; •.i I iMPORTANT ·Mt;:,~$AGE I FOR zr: ... £ ' TELEPHONED Pl.EASE CALL· CAME TO SEE YOU • :WIU. CALL. AGAIN '.1-------,f---1+--------t---1 • , WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH flETIJRNED YOUR OAU. SPECIAL ATTefnoN . MESSAGE------------ SIGNED a, 1184 f lMPORTANT .M'.E'.$$AGE;:I • ·1; FOR ~ • t-f'!:'-f~ I M' • ·. • ~; .M: ,. TIME // : J_q . -~ 1 ' M Of _____________ _ PHONI:/" MOBJ..._ ________ ._..a... __ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CAU. , • CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN ·•· WANTS TO SEE ¥OU RUSH .• RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEC/AL ATTENTION i_ SA02967 SIGNED Sa -SIGNED c,(!88,,~ ~=~=;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;======;;;;;;t;;..Ji11J!84~. • .. ·. ' .. ·-.,_- .• .:··· . GIUFFRE00 1521 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 51Jane Doe 2I 170RTANT MESSAGE I FOR ;}¾y: DATE w 5° /p>f TIME /:J':j ~ M ~-~ t'aJ/1.e OF _____________ _ PHO~~ MOBI....._--... __________ _ TELEPHONED c] PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATI'ENTION MESSAGE------------·120:( .::/4_, SIGNED a 1184 I. IMPORTANT MJ;:S~Aq_,::J FOR . A.Mo DATE TIME P.M; ' ,, I M ' OF PHONE/ MOBIL"'" TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU, AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE • M_._ CAME TO SEE YOU I • j ; WANTS TO SEE·YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------.--------:9;e. µadd Zle. & SIGNE IMPORTANT fy\ES~A,GE M . OF _ _.__ ___________ _ PHONE/ MGBILE------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME: TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECiALATTENTION MESSAGE------------ '· s A02998 .. SIGNED 1~1 GIUFFRE001553 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2TELEPHONED (:AME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CAll MESSA~- • ~a-?e SIGNED Pl.EASE·CAU. WILL CAI.L AGAIN RUSH SPECIAl.AlTENTION a 1164 f IMPORTANT ME$:~AGE 1· . . . . OF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBL~-----'--------- TELEPHONED .~EASE CALL . CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AETUR~D YOUR CALI.: SPEClAL ATTENTION .-hc.-c-IMPORTANT MESSAGE OF----:----------- ~i[if '/4~,. .hc-t+ c -r '-/ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO S!=E YOU WILL ~ALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTION • MESSAGE------------ G-Oih'-1' . ~c.-l ~ SIGNED . I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I .FOR-,~~..._.......,.c......... _______ _ : • -:~ Tl~l' / 2_ .··21 ~ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEe YOU WILLCALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RE.T.URNEO YOUR CALI.. SP.ECIAL ATTENT!()II{ ... SA02968 _:·.:u • \(~:~ .. ~·/ ;f$.4 GIUFFRE001522 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 51Jane Doe 2, __ ., __ . ___ _ •••-••-- •--•-•• .. •--•--••--•-•••_. 'ho .. , --•WO<#_,..,.. _______ •••••-.-•-••-••••--•••-•---•-•----- .. -•._ __ _ I •M1RTANT MESSAGE 1 FOR _· E . DATE z) t. 7) 0> TrME /cJ.' 18 M---.----~------,-.....--- OF /9,s -_/7.Cl y Wt'/( PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETIJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED IMPORTANT MESSAGE M r TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN . WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR ,1..... . J. r--:. ' c,_ • DATE Z/.z~"/-c:>>- 4:~0 1~ TIME , M Geo.VJ L (AC OF PHONE/ /Jc: .;t:;Mc.rfc.,.. :::I/ MOBu.E 9" TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU FiUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEClAL ATTENTION MESSAG~E 1/, / -'O J{'J . (~.t,/ /411/VJ SIGNED -r: a 1184 QF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TELEPHONED ,~-PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH FIE11.JRNED YOUfl CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION S.A.001067 GIUFFRE001388 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 51Jane Doe 2IJVlt'UK IAN I . i ' OF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE .,,. TELEPHONED t\ PLEASECAU. CAME TO SEE YOU-... Wlt.L CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL qAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE //,!/ s /""cMII, SA03000 IMPORTANT MESSAGE --,__ ____________ __,., WANTS TO SEE YOU AETI.lRt,IEO YOUR CALL I srGNEO RUSH-- SPECIAL ATTENTION -1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAG~-f FOR 1,.,../.,/..,,--e:..t".4 ·. • • .. 1-?t? -7/· 01:>~_-/I' -:r,ClJ&.: DATE I G T,_ · TIME • ~V P.~, M~~-A .• OF ____________ _ ' ~~~-'----....;.;.·• ------- TaEPHONEO CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETUfWEO YOUR CALL 'c I FOR OATli 02 llfiDS:-TIME •. 1·SO&. · M C.hf'J t!tA" re. • OF, PHONE/ MOBILE ·TaEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAMeTO SEE YOU WILL CALL.AGAIN RUSH WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALL S_PECIALA1iEN:flON -MES~ ·~· ev\..}[. ' ~{)..lk. . SAO300 1 GIUFFRE001556 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2IMPORTANT MESSAGE ~R---,,~~'----"'----------­ DATE...,..._£--___,..,=-="'-----TIME 12; 9 0 ~ M Ch:0 ·,.,e, Of _____________ _ PHONE/ Mom~------------ TELEPHONED (\ PlEASECAll CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE: YOU RUSH AEl'tJANEO YOUR CALL SPEC!ALATTENTION MES~ -:-re cno rifdt doe..sn 7J SIGNED t1 H ; ; a 1184 [IMPORTANT MESSA9-E I FOR l. { TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGA!N WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION 1 ! ' i . i j I I ! I i l. i i • . SAO3002 SIGNED IMPORTANT -MESSAGE· OF _____________ _ PHONE/ MOBI------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN • WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH- RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEC'1ii.ATTENT10N SIGNED IMPORTA.NT MESSAGE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU "WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SSE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION rJrue ofl fcia.. _, ~J. ?q;?ef.5 -----;, GIUFFRE001557 r I i l j ! r l +· ) t Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2•l .-i 4!. J At! JOI I 4! I .ei I ... ~ .-1 I 4! .. ill .... I -8; . I .. ~ JI'.: 4! A! . l , I .ei All Jlt J l ' ! I IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR rt-( TELEPHONED PLEASECA1.L CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YotlR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION / ' SIGNED a 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE., E. FOR~=-'---.-"'-,----------~ 1 TELEPHONED PLEASECAl.L CAME TO SEE YDU WlLL CAU AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH _,..-~ AffiJANED YOUR CALL SPl::CIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ J. a . 1184 : . ...-...., __ CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNEC! YOUR CALL SIGNED SPECIAL ATTENTION -1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR 7}Ll ' }] . /1'1. a;< vvJL/.___ 3 Jo& Jvr- TIME q: 01· ~ TELEPHONED v· PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALI.. SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------ 41 ~ UM # SA001071 SIGNED a 1184 GIUFFREOO 1392 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2j lMPQRTANT MESSAGE I '-I /..I ~:?1:-~~,¥\_.; FOR ----,_.."-'-. .r;Jr ...._,,,-,..--/-,------------ OATE '-I / .,t-,f,,• / 0 .S TIME / -! ?· _;::, M __ --.:..l_!'_~ e,_,,'-,.../ .,,_~_~1+-------- '• _,I Of ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE-~------------ Tptf:PHONED v·· PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU.CALLAGAfN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED c<. IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR '--J·n.4_ ~ • 't'~\.ut.. OF_ PHONE/ -J ' -a 1184 MOBILE-------------- TELEPHONED v ....... • PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGA0IN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION . r. _I SIGNED.. c:;:;:;,,:.-.,1 j IMPORTANT MESSAGE J -FOR--a''---=-· _r::....-,..·-------- oATE ~// J /.~ _,< M ___., I ,,.. .,i' ! . • , -? OF PH MOBILE _____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASECAlL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU.. CALL AGMN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED ,. 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR J:·, 1=-, ' ' 1z•;iS~ DATE 5 'J,R,}(,l<; TIME ,_, ...:::, J I • M S ()RTAN·T MESSAGE I ~R~ 'I Dj -OO TIMV'. I~ M .01) RQ,7( : ---- • OF "PHONE/ MOBILE. TELEPHONED PLEA/;jE CALI. CAMETOSEEYOU Wlµ. CALI.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU • RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAL/-)(_ SPEclAL ATTENTION , ., MESSAGE - - . < • - 980 .. I SIGNED a 1184 GillFFRE001535 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2• ( IMPORTANT MESSAGE I I IMPORTANTM.E~S~~E I \ :!( ...... - FOR I : : ; DATE '5f2?/a·s- TIME g .' lO ff:' M Ee:.u.: FOR ~ e_ : '>.Jvpr .. . .• A.M 'DATE TIME • .7 ' 2" .Q ~ /libXwel( - M -./11;-S I OF .. OF PHONE/cd 6.tJv {a.,Jl b.-0'4> C. MOBJLE .. PHONE/ MOBl1S:: TELEPHONED . , .· PLEAS!; CALL ~ TELEPHONED X-PLEASECAU. .. .. CAME TO SEE YOU· WILL CALL AGAIN CJWE: TO SEE. YOU WILL CALL AGAIN .. wmrs TO SEE YOU RUSH WANTS TQ SEEYOU RUSH RETUANl~IYYOUR ~ SPECIAL ATTENTION RETlJRNED YOUR CAil. -~~CIALATTENTIOl'f . .. -·MESSAGE MESSAGC -···· .. ., -.. .. • ~-"1 ·--· ' .• ...... .. . . ,,.:. ......... SIGNED a 1184 , • SIGNEn --r 11ft --·-, __ •• --·-·-· ·-·· ---··· ---·-·-·--··- -·-· -1-- --· -· -·- • ·.IM'PORTANT MESSAGE IMPORTANT MESSAGE PHONE/ MOmLE-----.....c.....------- TELE!'HONED PLEASE CALL TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL :· .CAME TO SEE: YOU WILL CAI.L AGAIN CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALI.AGAIN WANTS TO SEe·vou RUSH WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AETUF!NEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION RETURNED YOUR CALL ' • SPEOIALATTENTION MESSA~E------------ SA02981 '.SIGNED ---► ·- GIUFFRE001536 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CAll ....... .. .;. TELEPHONED CAME TO. SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU Ri;TURNED YOUR CALL .... , ···---.. j IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR ~E= DAT!; • J/ J'.l J b5°' TIME ] :o{ ~ M L es/t 'e //Ve ~J,,r OF PHONE/ .. MOBILE .. PLEASE CALL TELE?HONED PU:ASEOALL WILL CAtLAGArN CAME TO SEE YOU WiLL CALL AGAIN RUSH WANT$ TO see YOU RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION FltTIJRNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTIOl'f MESSAGE - .. .. .. -. . .. - SIGNED l. a 1184 1184 , : • ~lb · -··-••• ··--·-..... --·-··-·. I. ·----··· .. -· '·-.... _ ............ -· ·--· ·-·-·· ---·. -••• PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ; ~ . . i SA02983 a 1184 WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOOR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN' . RUSH ' SPECIAL ATTENTION / GIUFFRE001538 ! l i ! l ' l i Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2f 1MPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR f!;Jtls-DATE TIME fJ2 ; /0 ~::.· M. 6,h?s f. Q/i ½?. OF PHONE/ MOBIIC TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL K· : CAME TO S~ YOU Wlll CALL AGAIN ~ 1--" WANTS TO $EE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MES~GE , .. SIGNED a 1184 OF ______________ _ -PHONE/ MOBI~------------- TELEPHONEO , PLEASeCAU. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS to SEE YOU RUSH RETVRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION ME:SSAGi:.-E-------.-----,,,--- _5 hc IA/<'vrl rUn [v1 t J tMPORTAN'f MESSAGE I FOR ~r-e:. 'I DATE fl 4it1 .s'. TIME...,..;.=.~~!::I M..:. ,--- CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH "RETURNED YOUR CALL ·SPECIAL ATTI:NTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED .l. -----· -·-.. ·-· -............. - . t., 11M ) IMPORTANT MESSAGE:! OAT TIME--- OF _____________ _ 'PHONE/ • ;(:' MOBIL..._ _______________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASECAJ..L CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPEciALATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- :Sb t°!' Wl'Vli _·t:u nn~. SA02986 ----- a L.::S:;;IGN::.!EO~~~====;;.;;===;;;..,.;;;;;..~"t1i1!!J<1 -ls-~S:;IG::,::N:,:ED;:_;;=====;;;;;;;;;.;=;;;;;,:;;=;..:1:l.!164~- GIUFFREOO 1541 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 51JaJane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 TELEPHONED • )< PLEASE CALL . CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION TaEPHONED PLEASECAU CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU.AGAIN WAtlTS TO SEE YOU RUSH flETURtEO YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION ( IMPORTANT MESSAGE f' FOR J· E. 5hfaf . TJME 3 ! ott}j? DATE M TELEPHONED . • PL.EASE CALI. . CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETVRNEDYOUA'CAU. SPECIAl:.ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- Of ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE_· ____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME'fOSEE.YOU WlLL CAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH REnlRNEO YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SAO2990 GIUFFRE001545 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2· I ~MPORTANT MESSAGE I \. ~ ... _.,, ........ FOR / : •' PATE ~/2 4/tJ\­ M Ly~--TIME g: 10 f:: : OF ___ -,-______ ....._ ___ _ ~call dQy TaEPHONED . ,· PLEASE CALL ~-"' CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED"YOUR CALL SPEqlALATTENTION ·MESSAGE---------------- SIGNED -.-11S4 ,, ; l I IMPORTANT JytESS~GE I FOR Y, t;_· -/./ • ·,· AM DATE > ~.2/t? £ TIME .,7 ' 2 0 . • M /lfrS /i,te;r /Wt! I( QF _________ _,__ ____ _ PHONE/ MOEit.....__ ____________ __, TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME. TO SEE YOU WILL CAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE--------'----'------ - SIGNED a 1184 ··---· ·--·---·-·---·. --·r ·-., •• _ -···· ---.. • . • ·--· .... , .. ,.. •.. /J IMPORTANT JYlESSAClE TELEPHONED WANTS TO SEE' YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL WlLL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSA~E-------------•l ' ; . i 8A02991 ' PHONE/ -MOB/,....._ _____ ....... ____ ~-- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILLCALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL ; ' SPECIAL ATTENTION GJUFFRE0O 1546 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 51JJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2.vur • I I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR .Ji~ PHONE/ MOBJ........_ __ --'----------- TELEPHONED ti PLEASE CALL i/ CAME TO SEE YOU .WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTEl'ITION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED iJ1 11&4 IMPORTANT MESSAGE TEL.fPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO see YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED 8> 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE l FOR--.=t--·-·-~E=--·--------:;,,,-, DATE 6fi > l~f r M_---:c;=::.-•__..._.M..-:-•------ OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TELEPHONED 1X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Wlll CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR ~. J. ,1 E'p~~ 1 ·~ • l, I t.J r TIME / ';} : -:J._f~ M Of ______________ _ PHONE/ .. ~-MOB~E---------------- TELEPHONED PtEASECAlL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH Rffi.JRNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-----------~- SAO01078 SIGNED GIUFFRE00 1399 I .. 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2.. I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR ;;:,-£' DATE ,1~/o~ TIME~ f t M OF G.·. l!J_, PHONE/ MOBILE • TELEPHONED "'x. PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU ,, WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS.TO SEE YOU RUSH '. RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE -- SIGNED ~. BT 1184 - ~-. --.. -··-----··---· •••. I -l • ! l ' OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE _____________ _ l'EL.EPHONED • CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH -... 111!4 ; f IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR ,J:. E. DATE QF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------- TB.EPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SIGNED PHONE/ MOBII . .E-------'------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL ~ETOSEEYOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTlON • SA001081 SIGNED GIUFFRE001402 l I l i I ! ! Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 51Jane Doe 2I IMPORTANT MESSAGE] FOR :r..· £·. DATE & l I j_ L <7 >.-A.M, TIME P.M, M •. • Ce'c-1/,'a OF PHONE/ MQBIIC TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MES~E -e~ al/I ,·J_ Vt.Pi,,{ ab !Ou±. r.0£,,~tttv1ce C 12. ti a. -1:. .s. II rt SIGNED .,-& 1184 J 1MPORTA ·NT 'MESSAGE' I FOR ""1 t::. . ,/ ,nrl'f,."""~ ·. ., . A.M. OATE TIME P.M, M OF -~<¥).:::\1\V\~ PHONE/ 'MOBILE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAI.LAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIALATTENTION MESSAGE ! ~ .5'vi • u.1c,v i e s. L,d C<:t H 0!~1( l-£ -~OU u.,o_ \A,-\ C).._ l...\,\o.ss~ e ±:::> f'~ () VE' ◊\/ 0-. {'-\-~ y 4JI\ ~ , VV..Q\J\ € SIGNED ·• 1164 IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR r ~ DATE2's."/07f/0~ TIME /J:4:;, . M frd:n r ht!.clZU off!-z ·c C OF ____________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE-------------- TEl.EPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION PHONE/ MOBILE..;..·-----,-------- TELEPHONED Pll:ASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALI. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR OAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION SA001084 SIGNED GIUFFRE001405 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 51., i i !' i ! ! r i I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR J=•E. DATE 8 l I :J..Jo:>- TIME 4·:12 ~ M (i. M. OF PHONE/ MOBII..E TELEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU.AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETI.IRNED YOUR CAU SPECfAL ATTENTION MESSAGE she. tc.lt ( I m ,.. ,2. .z. ~~ dt-1 Cl.lA//-'/'Jl..1,p KJA,';) 't, l tA e_ "rl- . SIGNED ..,..._ a-. 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I \--· FOR •• ·t -:; AM. DATe ________ TJME--~P.M. M ______________ _ 0 o.\l oh OF __ _..._...;;a..:.~--=--=---------- PHONEI MOBI......_ ____________ _ M ______________ _ QF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE------------~ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN - SIGNED _I IMP. . ANT MESSAGE I FOR--.--,f--'-.-.--.._ _____ ....,....._=" DATE...-j:.=f-ll,.L,C...J..JL<~~---T~E-~-- M °'. ..,,. l OF------~-------- PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN * i 1/.-t?Q fl/'1 ,, i i O&J085 t __ SIGNED ~ J· a ~=:=:.=======;;;;;;;===;;;;;;.J,;11~84U : 1.,,:;:S;.:;:IGN::,;:;:ED:._=====•=====;..:1.lil184:u -~-I GIUFFRE001406 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 41 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2f IMPORTANT MESSAGE J FOR ___ --;....! .....,~_t--..,F__. ________ _ ....... ..J. .-; i ~ 1· /.• .4 • .v ~ .-,•-, A,. . DATE ---,----.-~'-;.1-,? -~ -_-• .;, __ TIME ,,--' ' __ -., -P.~. ,.. •• , J ' f ' ~lcf-'"'.j•,...,..•- M_-,.<-,._._!--'·=---r .... f""',~-"-1,....,· J__.,<.,_-,._i ------ OF ______________ _ PHONE/ M08'l.E _____________ _ TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNEO -.- ..._, ai- 1Hl4 I tMPORTANT MESSAGE I -.F FOR--=,t----'------------ TELEPHONED ~EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIL_L CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE vou· RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL • SPECIALATTENTIOlil a ----i1R4 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I --· FOR T . /'~·.- DATE 'S,·. I.,...-~, ,-.... ...:. _/ c:' ..e!:. . ,.· t' ·.> TIMI;: :-; : 2 ~-ti- ) ./>._/ /. -/.,,,, M (:-·. 4 -_ OF PHONE/ •. MOBILE TELEPHONED )( PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE . ---Bil SIGNED ; 1184 ~ I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOA ~-: E ..:;J ! • I _,. A.M . DATE ¢' /7 7. /,-,;~ TIME P.M. I ~ , it-1 M , ,, OF PHONE/ ·' OOSILE· .. . . TELEPHONED )l -PLE¥E CA/1. CAME TO SEE YOU ~ILL Cf.LL A0AIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH ·.- RETOONEO YOUR CALL 'SPECl~_-A'fTENTION MESSAGE - SAO01477 --- SIGNED ,· $ 1184 GIUFFREoo 1449 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 42 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2__.: ~; ~: _., 8 1 ~ -----J IMPORTANT MESS~u ... ,- ~,. j FOR 1 (1./i. • J . t::,-;, :de,'\ n) .;_3 c·-' J ."/f A.M. TIME ___ __..eJ....,M. M OF _______________ _ Pl-fONE/ MOBILE ______________ _ TEI.EPHO~EO PLEAS6 CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL C.A.LLAGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSl-f llETUANEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- --..fl SIGNFO· c:r- .. 1184 IMPORTANT MESSAGE FQR _____ ;t,, ______ ✓~· . __ t;a..~ ..... P._d_~_, ..... :..iL--__ _ ; TIME ,/.j." o? I ~ PHONE/ MOBILE--------------- TELEPHONED ✓ PLE~i::cAU CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNl:D YOUR CALL SPEelAt.ATTENTION ·MESSAGE-=------------- 0[), --r·~{ -------, ..l 1184 -·-' ...... ORTANT MESSAGE I FOR "\ .:. A.M. DATE TIME P.M. M OF •~)..~:, t~ '• .'l . PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTSTO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE \ tff.r.• r...-1 l \.-:~l··-·(- . V\··· ....... ., .. 'i •· ~•\· .... ") J r;-' ~ .. ·.•, \ \ ., ..,. '-[ ~ ·' SIGNED a, 1184 ( IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR /;-'4 · J £.p£M ·1 • l ·,·~'fill TIME J • .:;, P.M. M- OF _______________ _ PHONE/ MOBIL1e---------,-------- TELEPHONED' .,.. PLEASE CALL 0AME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN. RUSH SPECIAi.ATTENTiON I WANTS 10 SEE VOU RETURNED YOUR CALL MESSAGE--------------, _ _. .-1. SAO01449 a SIGNED 1t84 GIUFFREOO 1420 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 43 of 51Jane Doe 2I IMPORTANT MESSAGE ' FOR DATE M PHONE/ MOBIL TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL : .,v '·1 -/v>. l .,. ·-.. d. SIGNED TIME PLEASE CALL WJLLCALLAGMN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION A.M. P.M. a,_ 1184 f IMPORTANT MESSAGE J FOR :JC::.. DATE M TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS 70 SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CAl:l. M~GE -I ~o. se ·ca.\l SIGNED TIME Pi.EASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION !?C,\c k A.M. P.M. a 1184 '. I ' ~ I ' \i.C. f IMPORTANT MESSAGE.I FOR ~z; DATE M OF Ad\r~ I)_ \A.CA PHONE/ MOBI TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE VOU RETURNED YOUR CALL • I • ,:_ ---.: ~ SIGNED TIME PLEASECAll WILL CALI. AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION A.M. P.M. a 1184 J 1MPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR A.M. 00 TIME P.M. ·" M PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED PLE/ISI: CALL . CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE 7" l!j s! tMc1~1E? ~do. v'\S @: ~~ \,S ~ ·011086 SIGNED -· .. V ,r ,:~ ·~· .. ~ _, ,, . - (j:f,.TfHE!D, t i j j j ! ! I l i ' Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 44 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2[ IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR ..;;:-~. DATE .9 L't/ll .s-j , TIME 5.·4,0 ~ ...... I M ,,, -OF PHONI:/ MOBILi= TELEPHONED· X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE ·'' SIGNED ) a 1184 1. IMPORTANT MESSAGE J FOR ,J:-E. DATE .:JI 4/-os TIME' J ,· z s ~ M 8 d~ I~ k1 °' OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOB!~------------- Tl:1.EPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE 'you RUSH RETUflNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE---1,_._:~r..u~~..,;.a._ h o e SIGNED ..... OF ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE--------------- TELEPHONED ✓ PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU. CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALl SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE---------~--.--- J'.../l.,,_, --w--1/ . ~ :A..t.: ,Y .~ ,.. -~ .-· ~ :--, _,. ~ -~ -·~ ·::.i ".J ,,~ l SIGNED -,-...:· .... . . .. _ .. ' .. ·-··-.. ' .. . ... -· ' -... -·-.. -. :: I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I ; .- :- FOR 72kt C J • E;; f'<"+e j • '1 ;. -~ CJ L-st Lor · TIME .:Z: oa-~: .• DATE j' -. , ;. ' -(., M .... ,. -·-~~ OF .- PHONE/ •' MOBILE ~ ? TELEPHONED V PLEASE CALL :-, CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN ~~: WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH FIETUANED YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION :• ,., ~·, ~ MESSAGE .. ,. --... --.- .• :- :1· ~r '-.-.- SAO01089 -.- - SIGNEn of( a {1 -· 1184 --~ "'. -~- GruFFREDD1409 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 45 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2•,. i· f ; I I i j I I i ! ,. ,· i ! I . - ~ ~ ) IMPORTANT MESSAGE] DATe __ _,-t-, __ ro--1/~o_:1' __ TIME M_G=---. 0---1'1-<.-.:... _____ _ Of ______________ _ PHONE/. MOBIL.__ ____________ _ TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WAl ! ·~ j • 1 GIUFFREOD141 l l l Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 47 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 JaJane Doe 2· I rMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR ..:;f C.-... · DATE ~j I ;-, I O 5 TIME 3 ~, ( i! . M A ob-1~uo, Of ______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE .... ------------- TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL SIGNED PLEASE CALL WILL CAU. AGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION a 1184 f JMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR /1'1A · ✓ . e-·,,.......,__, II Os PHONE/ MOBlu...---.----------- 'Ta.EPHONED ECALL GAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH AEl\JRNED YOUR CALL SPE'C!ALATTENTION MESSAG"'------------- SIGNED a 1184 ; j .. ' r IMPORTANT MESSAGE , FOR ~£ A.M. DATE ________ TIME ___ P.M • M ______________ _ OF N PHONE/ MOBILE ____________ _ TELEPHONED ·Pt.EASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH REnJRNED YOUR CAU. SPECIAL ATTENTION SIGNED I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR---=.]:+-·-'t:;.=-.;...• _______ _ DATE _j / 1 O IC, 5,-TIME~ ~~ M Rd1-,a vr "\ ;~ OF PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE VOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL ·oo SIGNED PLEASE CALL WILL CALLAGAIN RUSH SPECIAL ATTENTION ,I. be o SAO01093 .~ ~ -~ ~ :• :r ' ,, :: ; ~ ;, ,Y ,v .~ .~ ,-.­,Y -~--~ •" ~ ,Y .v ..... .... - ~ -~· ,.. ,Y ::: :... .v .... . v .... - ,Y ,, 118' i:: ,v ·== GIUFFRE001413 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 48 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR_~-~r- ___ .~E ....... __. _________ ~ -..J . ! ?.:i'"'' TIMF 2-~•56_~ OF _______________ _ PHONE/ MOBILE-------------- TaEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WlLL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SP EClAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- SIGNED a,, 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR • CAME TO SEE YOU Will. CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAtl SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE--------------I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR :r-..E DATE 1olt Lr22~ TIME q ·-·~:1·) ·L ._..-> • • _5,: ' 7 • , M . a.;,-a::z/.:2 OF ' PHONE/ MOBILE TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WIU CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE t /.., - --1 ~-..ct-~lii!Pd_ l!i!: • I 1111: I &I /t_///1 Ol,{.C/ ; -4/>/l ~"' s: It / SIGNED -r a, 1184 I-IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOA---· ....... E __ . ________ ""'?"~ TELEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TQ SEE YOU :WILL CALL AGAIN .WANTS TO SEE YOU 'RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- SAO01469 -.-' &, SIGNED _ __,......_ __________ 1184 GIDFFRE00I441 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 49 of 51Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2Jane Doe 2I IMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR_-+-.,__._,_ ______ _..:...._...,,...~ DATE /C/z /&'J,.. TIME /{1; Y ... ~ . . M _5ak1l1 OF _______________ _ PHONE! MOBILE _____________ _ TELEPHONED CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU SIGNED PLEASECAJ..L WILL CALL AGAIN RUSH a, 1184 I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOA f!:U. J . t;-R?+e1 ·~, ··•• I I !_; • T n or & ? • ~ _.., A.M. ._.,..1_.A. • .... J TIME c,< • V P.M. M OF---------------~ • PHONE/ MOB~E-----'----------- TELEPHONED ;/ PLEASE CAU. CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAU. AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED VOUR'CALL 'SPECIAL ATTs-lTION S!GNEO a­ u84 J IMPORTANT MESSAGE r FOR J:· E ' .J , / TELEPHONED -X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SE!:: VQU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAU. SPECtAL ATTENTION MESSAGE----~-------- SIGNED IA 1184 ) IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR--J=-+-·-,~E~~----------,,.--,-­ DAT ' 0 I Z TELEPHONED X PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAlN WANTS TO SEE V©lJ RUSH RETIJANEO YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE-------------- SAO01470 a-SIGNEo _____________ HA4 GRJFFRE00 1442 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 50 of 51Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 JaJane Doe 2r. II [ IMPORTANT MESSAGE I FOR-----1----~E----~--------- CAME TO SEE YOU Will CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- - SIGNED a, 1184 j IMPORTANT MESSAGE f FOR .]:· e.. . DATE / t!'/J/c,_;,- TIME ~r: ( 0 A M ___5"' 01 ~ /2 OF ______________ _ PHONE/ M081LE-------------- TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGA1N WANr5 TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED ~OUR CALL SPECIAL ATTEJ\ITION I IMPORTANT MESSAGE I f'OR X: E. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CAlL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU AUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------....,....--,---,--- /.,4.M v~u -u.# _/;/,-~,, SIGNED PHONE/ a 1184 MOBILE------------~- TELEPHONED ✓ PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAGE------------- SAO01471 .._p GIUFFRE001443 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 51 of 51UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION REGARDIN G “SEARCH TERMS” AND NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER CONCERNING FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF DEVICES ............................................. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 111 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Ms. Maxwell”) respectfully files the following Submission Concerning Search Terms and No tice of Compliance with Court Order regarding Forensic Examination of Devices, as follows: INTRODUCTION Defense counsel has already run the amended list of search terms proposed by Plaintiff on each applicable device and as to each email ac count to which Ms. Maxwell has access. Based on those searches, not one single additional responsive and non-privileged document has been identified. Ms. Maxwell’s original search for responsive d ocuments was complete at the time it was conducted in February 2016. The recent forensic imaging and searches have merely confirmed as much. Plaintiff has sent defense counsel, this Court and Ms. Maxwell on a costly, time-consuming and burdensome wild goose chase that has yielded not so much as a single goose feather. It is time to call off the hunt. Submission Concerning Search Terms The Requests for Production Ms. Maxwell served Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Discovery Requests on February 8, 2016. Those requests sought, inter alia : x all communications with thirteen specific witnesses, namely Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Roberts, Prince Andrew, Ross Gow, Alan Dershowitz, Emmy Taylor, Sarah Kellen, Glenn and Eva Dubin, Jean Luc Brunel, Nadia Marcincova and Bill and Hillary Clinton (RFPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 32 and 37) x documents relating to various topics include massages (RFP 5 and 29), travel records (RFPs 8, 9, 14 and 39), a civil deposition in 2010 (RFP 19), and Ms. Maxwell’s professional aff iliation with Jeffrey Epstein (RFPs 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 23, 24, 30); x documents relating to any contact between Ms. Maxwell and law enforcement (RFP 13 and 38); x photos of females under the age of 18 (RFP 7), of any time inside a home or aircraft of Epstein (RFP 15), of Plaintiff (RFP 18); Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 112 x documents relating otherwise to Plaintiff including her hospital records (RFP 25), passport (RFP 26), monetary payments made to her (RFP 27), her employment (RFP 28), and any person to whom she gave a massage (RFP 29). Ms. Maxwell conducted a thorough search of her email systems and her devices prior to her production on February 8, 2016. All documents identified as responsive were reviewed by counsel and either produced or placed on a privilege log. The First Responses were the subject of litigation in March and April 2016. This Court limited the scope of a number of the requests (see Transcript of March 17, 2016 and Order of April 15, 2016 (Doc. # 098), and Ms. Maxwell later produced, pursuant to this Court’s Order, doc uments that originally had been withheld pursuant to privilege. As of April 18 , Ms. Maxwell’s production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents was complete. Plaintiff served a Second set of Request s for Production on April 14. Those Requests primarily concerned police reports about Plaintiff ’s various contacts with law enforcement and how the defense was able to obtain those publicly- available documents (RFP’s 1 -5, 19). The Second Requests also sought: x Joint Defense Agreements with Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz (RFPs 6, 7, 9 and 10) and communications with Mr. Dershowitz’s counsel (RFP 11); x “all documents concerning Virginia Giuffre” (RFP 12); x any contracts with or agreement for legal fees to be paid by Epstein (RFP 13-15); x documents concerning public statements made by Ms. Maxwell (RFP 17-18). Again, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel conducted a thorough search and produced any responsive non-privileged documents. To date, Ms. Maxwell has produced 1,130 pages of documents. Litigation concerning whether the searches conducted were thorough enough then ensued leading to the instant submission. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 113Search Terms On June 20, 2016, this Court Ordered Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present. Defendant is further directed to run mutually- agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of distribution of this opinion. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel provided a list of 368 search terms. See Menninger Decl. Ex. A. Plaintiff’ s proposal included astoundingly broad terms, to wit: x“Terramar” --both the name of Ms. Maxwell’s non -profit and x x x“max*” – part of Ms. Maxwell’s last name, as well as all of her paternal relatives’ names. x“GM” --Ms. Maxwell’s initials. xcommon words such as “hotel,” suite, v illa, “bed,” “bath,” and “lingerie.” Plaintiff’s originally proposed search terms woul d literally hit on every single email from either Ms. Maxwell’s personal or her business email addresses, as well as every document related to the non-profit, The Terramar Project, that Ms. Maxwell founded and runs. Plaintiff’s originally proposed terms also failed to relate to the actual discovery requests upon which they were to be based. For search terms 124-341, Plaintiff took her own Rule 26 disclosures, separated the first and last names of each witness she had identified, and asked that they be searched individually (along with “wild card character searches”) , even though, as described above there were only 13 specific witn esses for whom Plaintiff had actually sought all communications. For example, Plaintiff wanted the names Bill, Mark, Phil, Bob, Mike and Todd Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 114 searched yet there is no RFP related to those name s, nor the vast majority of the other listed first and surnames.1 By correspondence of July 14, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel specifically identified the problematic terms, agreed to a limited list, and requested a substantive conferral call on this issue. See Menninger Decl., Ex. B. In that correspondence , Defendant’s counsel gave specific reasons for the objection to a number of the terms that were problematic in that they called for the search of common words, names or phrases that would likely result pulling documents completely unrelated to this case. Id. Counsel also suggested proposed limiting terms with respect to names of individuals to appropria tely limit the scope and target the search. Id. (suggesting limitations on searches of names to “make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof)”). After explaining the appropriate and well-reas oned objections to certain terms, defense Counsel agreed to search over 110 of Plaintiff’s proposed search terms , despite the fact that many of those terms were objectionable. Id. (“Although many of your other search terms are a 1 On or about June 27, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel Brad ley Edwards and Defendant’s counsel Jeffery Pagliuca held a telephone meet and confer conference on a number of issues. Among the issues raised by Mr. Pagliuca was the overbreadth of the proposed search t erms. The discussion was left that Mr. Edwards would talk with Plaintiff’s team of lawyers to narrow the scope, as Mr. Pagliuca understood it. Thus, contrary to the representation in the Motion, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel did inform Plaintiff’s counsel of the ir disagreement with the proposed search terms. As well, Mr. Pagliuca informed Mr. Edwards that becaus e he, Laura Menninger and Ms. Maxwell were all traveling on vacations in the weeks before and after the 4th of July holiday, that they would need additional time to comply with the Court’s Order and provide the production. Mr. Pa gliuca and Mr. Edwards agreed that productions would be made prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition, scheduled by agreement on July 22, 2016. Based on this discussion, defense counsel was blindsided when they received the Motion for Sanctions, anticipating that they would soon be receiving a substantially limited and modified list of proposed search terms to permit search and production prior to the July 22 deposition. In the interim, all of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devi ces had been sent for imaging. Defense counsel corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of the Motion for Sanctions, requesting that it be withdrawn (without prejudice), pending completion of conferral on the search terms as required by this Court’s specific and general orders on conferral. It appears there was a miscommunication between Plaintiff’s own counsel on this issue, as well as between counsel for both of the parties; but, it was clearly just that – a miscommunication and misunderstanding on where things stood. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 115tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis. ”).2Having heard nothing from Pl aintiff’s counsel by the close of business on July 15, 2016, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel ran the 110 of Plaintiff’s proposed terms on the forensic images of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and email accounts , including both Because of the breadth of the 110 terms proposed by Plaintiff, the original search resulted inapproximately 9,000 documents and communications containing one or more term in the content or meta-data. The volume of the documents is explained by the breadth of the terms searched, resulting in pulling non-relevant, non- responsive information from Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and emails, including thousands of underwater photos related to Ms. Maxwell’s non -profit, the word “passport” due to the fact that the Terramar Project includes an “ocean passport” program, as well as numerous family holiday photos. All of the documents were reviewed individually by counsel for Ms. Maxwell for responsiveness to Plaintiff’s discovery request, pursuant to this Court’s Order. Of those documents, the only responsive documents were either communications between Ms. Maxwell and current counsel or were communications with, or prepared at the request of, Ms. Maxwell’s UK Counsel, Philip Barden, 2Defense counsel specifically requested a telephone conf erence to discuss any of the other terms, noting that the search would need to proceed over the weekend to permit review and production of any documents prior to Defendant’s deposition on July 22, 2016. Id. (“I am available by telephone to day and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein . If I do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices.”). Plaintiff’s counsel did not timely respond to the July 14, 2016 letter, the clearly articulated counter-proposed terms (over 110 of the 368 pro posed by Plaintiff), or set a time to discuss the articulated objections to other terms. Instead, on Ju ly 18, 2016, Plaintiff’s filed a response to t he Letter Motion to Strike for Failure to Confer, inexplicably and inaccurately claiming 1) that defendant is running “secret search terms” and 2) claiming that defendant’s counsel refused to confer despite the clear confer ral letter and request for telephone conference. See July 18, 2016 Letter to the Court from M. Shultz. 3Plaintiff also requested searches of old email accounts of Defendant, t. Ms. Maxwell has been able to access the ” account and it contains no responsive documents. Ms. Maxwell has been unable to access and does not recall ever using that account. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 116 in anticipation of a potential lawsuit in the United Kingdom. See Menninger Decl. at paragraph 8. The documents concerning Mr. Barden have been added to the privilege log. Id. Upon receipt of Plaintiff’s Response to the Letter Motion to Strike for Plaintiff’s failure to confer, the undersigned reiterated that there were no “secret search terms” and that Plaintiff’s own proposed terms were used, as limited. See Menninger Decl., Ex. C . Defense counsel also reiterated the request for Court Ordered conferral, again offering times to confer that would permit any additional terms to be run, documents reviewed and production of non-privileged responsive documents (if any) prior to Ms. Maxwell’s July 22, 2016 second deposition. Id. Plaintiff’s Revised List of Search Terms Finally, on July 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a telephone call with the undersigned to discuss the lack of responsive documents to the 110 search terms already run, as well as the remaining objectionable terms and their purported relevance. During the call, Plaintiff ’s counsel argued that their proposed search terms numbered 124-341 were relevant because they were witness names “related to massages” (RFP 5). That justification was clearly lacking because the terms included names like “Dore Louis,” who is a lawyer for witness Johana Sjoberg and whose wife works with Ms. McCawley. They also included Plaintiff’s trea ting physician Karen Kutikoff, Plaintiff’s literary agent Jarred Weisfeld, Plaintiff’s mother Lynn Miller, Detective Joe Recarey, Mr. Edwards’ law partner Scott Rothstein , and countless other people who would have no knowledge of any ma ssages nor otherwise were related to the discovery requests at issue. See Menninger Decl. Ex. A. More over, Ms. Maxwell already had run the Plaintiff ’s proposed terms related to massages, including “massage,” “masseuse,” “masseur,” and “therapy.” In effect, Plaintiff proposed search terms sought to expand her discovery requests from communications with a discrete set of individuals to all communications 1111 -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 117 with anyone that Plaintiff believed was or might be a witness, although no discovery requests called for such communications. Consequently, during the conferral call, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to withdraw the vast majority of objectionable terms. She also agreed to supply a list of witnesses who she believes truly might in some way relate to “massages” and submit that to def ense counsel. See Menninger Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff thereafter provided an additional 66 terms, all names, which Plaintiff claims she has some reason to believe are “ related to massages. ” Menninger Decl. Ex. E. Ms. Maxwell does not believe that searching th ese terms is appropriate, because, for example, the names include a journalist (Vicky Ward), Mr. Epstein’s elderly secretary, and various business people that form part of Plaintiff’s false narrative regarding her “sex trafficking ,” and searching for names in the absence of a topic (i.e., massages) is well-beyond the actual requests for production. Nevertheless, Ms. Maxwell did in fact run all of the names proposed by Plaintiff against the forensic images of Ms. Maxwell’s computers and her email accounts. The second search yielded 284 additional documents, each of which were reviewed individually by counsel for Ms. Maxwell. Menninger Decl. paragraph 8 and 9. Again, not a single responsive, non-privileged document was located; the vast majority of documents were pleadings from this case. The complete list of terms run against Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices and email accounts as agreed to by the parties is attached. Menninger Decl., Ex. F. Compliance with the Court’s Order to run agreed to terms was completed by July 21, 2016, prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 118Other Email Accounts In addition to her home and work email addre sses, Plaintiff also requested that Ms. Maxwell access two other email accounts that Plain tiff believes are associated with Ms. Maxwell, specifically . Ms. Maxwell has used the account as a “spam account,” i.e., an account address to use when registering for retail sale s notifications and the like. Nevertheless, undersigned counsel gained access to that account and searched all of the documents contained therein, including in folders for inbox, trash and sent. The email account contained no responsive documents. Ms. Maxwell does not recall ever using an account with . She has attempted unsuccessfully to access that account. Counsel’s own attempts to access the account yields a message: “The email address you ente red is not an email address or ID.” Counsel for Ms. Maxwell has no reason to believe that the account exists. Conclusion WHEREFORE, counsel for Ms. Maxwell through a certified forensic examiner has: a. imaged the hard- drives of Ms. Maxwell’s devices; b.imaged the servers containing emails from Ms. Maxwell’s personal and business email accounts; c. searched those forensic images for the search terms proposed by Plaintiff –including 110 from the first list and the additional 66 terms sent on July 19. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell has reviewed the documents obtained from the searches described above as well as thoroughly searched the email account . No additional responsive, non-privileged documents were identified in that process. An updated privilege log reflecting communications with Mr. Barden has been produced to Plaintiff. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 119 Ms. Maxwell hereby respectfully requests that: i. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instr uction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e) and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., be stricken; ii. Ms. Maxwell be awarded the costs of engaging the forensic examiner. Dated: August 1, 2016. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca ( pro hac vice) HADDON , MORGAN AND FOREMAN , P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 1110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 1, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Submission regarding “Search Terms” and Notice of Compliance with Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination of Computer Device via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 11EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 13B O I E S, S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R LL P 401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 22 • PH. 954.356.00 1 • FAX 954.356.0022 VIA E-MAIL Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th A venue Denver, Colorado 80203 lmenninger@hmtlaw.com Re: Guiffre v. Maxwell June 30, 2016 Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Laura, Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. E-mail: mschultz@bsfllp.com I write pursuant to this Court's June 20, 2016, Order regarding search and production from Defendant's electronic media. Accordingly, please use IMAP Capable software (or a functional equivalent) to capture all of the sent/received emails from Ms. Maxwell's various email accounts, including but not limited to the following: (1) (and any and any other accounts at (3) any of Ms. Maxwell's email account associated with The Terramar Project (including any accoun ; and (4) any other email accounts either used in the past, or curren y m use. Additionally, please use FileSeek software (or a functional equivalent) to retrieve any data, including electronic documents (such as Word documents; PDFs; Excel sheets; etc.), from Ms. Maxwell's devices, including personal computers, work computers, any tablets, and any phones. This includes any cloud storage accounts. Please confirm that you have imaged Ms. Maxwell's hard drives and other devices. Once you have gathered that data onto a platform (such as Summation or its functional equivalent), please run the below search terms. Since the Court ordered us to negotiate the search terms, please let me know if you think additional terms would be appropriate or whether you object to any terms, and your basis thereof. When applying the search terms, the search terms need to "hit" on documents even if the terms are embedded within other words. So, for example, the term "acuity" would yield a hit on the document, even if the word in the document is "acuityreputatoin." To return a hit on those WWW.BSFLLP.COM Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 12 embedded terms, I request that you use "wildcards" to ensure that embedded terms are located. (Wildcard characters are used to expand word searches into pattern searches by "replacing" single or multiple characters.) Where there are a specific number of characters needed to be included, a single wildcard will achieve that purpose. For example, in some programs, ! is used for single character wildcards, and * is used for multiple character wildcards. For instance: (a) Single character wildcard example: a search for L!n! will return "long," "link," "lane," "lone," etc. (b) Multiple character wildcard example: a search for chil* will return "children," "chill," "chilling," etc. (c) Mixed use of wildcards: a search for L!n* will return "lines," "lining," "linty," etc. Accordingly, the below search terms are submitted with wildcard characters to be applied in the manner of the examples above. Please apply them as such with whatever characters is required by the software/platform that you will be using. Similarly, regarding how the terms are combined (AND or OR). OR should expand your results while AND will restrict result to only those which include all the terms. Additionally, I want to clarify that I would like all of the metadata to be searched in addition to the text of the documents. For example, if the search term is "acuity," "hits" should include all the document that include the word "acuity" in their text OR in their metadata (this includes words in items such as email subjects, filenames, as well as any documents which include that word somewhere within their text). I also wanted to point out another special syntax with regard to proximity searching. This is a search that finds words within a specified distance from one another. On some software, this is represented as w/#, so a search for "meet w/2 greet" will return "meet and greet," "greet and meet" and "meet and nicely greet." Please apply accordingly. Additionally, for searches for people's initials in the search terms, please use "exact matches," "stand alone," or "literal" terms (see, e.g., PA, AD, JE, GM). Finally, the search terms are not to be treated as case-sensitive, meaning that the terms should be searched according to their letters, regardless of whether they are represented in the list as containing upper case or lower case letters. The following are the applicable search terms. 1) jefl' 2) geofl' 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 12 3) epst! !n* 4) jeevacation* 5) j* w/2 *jep* 6) j* w/2 *jeep* 7) roberts* 8) g!!ff!!* 9) virginia* 10) jenna* 11) jena* 12) genna* 13) andrew* 14) prince* 15) royal* 16) PA 17) JE 18) GM 19) AD 20) AH 21) GX 22) massage* 23) masseur* 24) therapist* 25) ellmax* 26) mindspring* 27) gmax* 28) emmy* 29) taylor* 30) sara* 31) kellen* 32) kensington * 33) vikers* 34) dubin* 35) eva* 36) glen* 37) brunel* 38) jean* 39) luc* 40) nadia* 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 12 41) marcinko* 42) *copter* 43) chopper* 44) pilot* 45) manifest* 46) log* 47) flight* 48) passport* 49) terramar* 50) southern* w/3 district* 51) palm* w/3 beach* 52) state* /3 attorney* 53) ross* 54) gow* 55) acuity* 56) victoria* w/3 secret* 57) al!n* 58) all!n* 59) dersh* 60) law.harvard.edu * 61) alandersh* 62) 63) 64) new* w/3 mexico* 65) NM 66) virgin* w/3 island* 67) usvi* 68) little* w/3 st* 69) little* w/3 saint* 70) st* w/3 j* 71) saint* w/3 j * 72) lsj* 73) Iago* 74) clinton* 75) BC 76) HC 77) HRC 78) police* 4 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 5 of 12 79) cop* 80) fbi* 81) federal* w/3 bur* 82) bur* w/8 inves! * 83) sex* 84) abuse* 85) toy* 86) dildo* 87) strap* w/3 on* 88) vibr* 89) sm* w/3 101 * 90) slave* 91) erotic* 92) servitude* 93) 94) 95) high* w/3 school* 96) secondary* w/3 school* 97) campus* 98) duke* 99) york* 100) licen!e* 101) assault* 102) juvenile* 103) seal* 104) joint* w/3 defen* 105) jda 106) roadhouse* 107) grill* 108) illegal* 109) immune* 110) prosecut* 111) law* w/3 enforc* 112) jane* w/3 *doe* 113) hospital* 114) hotel* 115) suite* 116) villa* 5 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 13Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 6 of 12 117) model* 118) actress* 119) france* 120) paris* 121) zoro* 122) ranch* 123) vanity* w/ 3 fair* 124) alexander* 125) kathy* 126) miles* 127) james* 128) austrich* 129) phil* 130) barden* 131) bjorlin* 132) fary* 133) boothe* 134) laura* 135) evelyn* 136) boulet* 137) boylan* 138) bee* 139) bunner* 140) casey* 141) carolyn* 142) carolin* 143) paul* 144) cassell* 145) sharon* 146) churcher* 147) cousteau* 148) alexandar* 149) devansan* 150) 151) 152) edwards* 153) amanda* 154) ellison* 6 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 7 of 12 155) cimberly* 156) espinosa* 157) Tatiana* 158) farmer* 159) maria* 160) nn* 161) fekkai* 162) crystal* 163) figueroa* 164) anthony* 165) tony* 166) freeh* 167) louis* 168) dore* 169) gany* 170) garvin* 171) meg* 172) sheridan* 173) gibson* 174) but!e* 175) graffl' 176) fred* 177) phil* 178) guderyon* 179) hall* 180) AH 181) harrison* 182) shannon* 183) victoria* 184) hazel* 185) brittany* 186) henderson* 187) jaffe* 188) carol* 189) kess* 190) kutikoffl' 191) pete* 192) listerman* 7 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 13Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 8 of 12 193) lyons* 194) bob* 195) meister* 196) jamie* 197) melanson* 198) lyn! * w/100 miller* 199) marvin* 200) 201) 202) 203) 204) mullen* 205) pagano* 206) mary* 207) paluga* 208) stan* 209) potting er* 210) recarey* 211) reiter* 212) richards* 213) sky* 214) rothstein* 215) forest* 216) sawyer* 217) doug* 218) schoetlle* 219) cecelia* 220) stein* 221) mark* 222) tafoya* 223) brent* 224) tindall* 225) kevin* 226) kirn* 227) thompson* 228) tuttle* 229) vaghan* 230) cresenda* 8 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 9 of 12 231) valdes* 232) valla* 233) martiza* 234) vazquez* 235) vick* 236) ard* 237) jarr!d* 238) weisfeld* 239) courtn!y* w/5 wild* 240) alessi* 241) rizzo* 242) rinaldo* 243) biddle* 244) sophie* 245) sofie* 246) degeo* 247) anouska* 249) fontanilla * 250) lynn* 251) jo* w/3 jo* 252) gramza* 253) grant* 254) waitt* 255) ted* 256 265) listerman* 266) lopez* 267) cindy* 268) lutz* 9 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 13Jane Doe 2Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 10 of 12 269) mellawa* 270) brah* 271) 272) 273) 274) mitrovich* 275) andrea* 276) peadon* 277) bill* 278) francis* 279) preece* 280) dara* 281) louella* 282) rabuyo* 283) robson* 284) haley* 285) adriana* 286) mucinska* 287) spamm* 288) visosky* 289) doug* OR dan* w/100 wilson* 290) igor* 291) zinoview* 292) allyson* 293) alyson* 294) alison* 295) allison* 296) chambers* 297) Gwendolyn* 298) beck* 299) Kelly* 300) Kelley* 301) Bovino* 302) ron* 303) burkle* 304) max* 305) cordero* 306) vald* 10 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 11 of12 3 07) cotrin * 308) chauntae* 309) dav* 310) teala* 311) ry!n* 312) dionne* 313) anders!n* 314) Rosalie* 315) fr! !dman* 316) tiffany* 317) Kathryn* 318) eric* 319) erik* 320) Lesl* 321) groff* 322 325) 326) ignatieva* 327) bret* 328) adam* 329) perry* 330) liffman* 331) Michael* 332) mike* 333) cheri* 334) lynch* 335) todd* 336) tom* 337) Pritzker* 338) Joanna* 339) sjoberg* 340) leslie* 341) wexner* 342) underage* 343) under!age* 344) minor* 11 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 13Laura A. Menninger, Esq. June 30, 2016 Page 12 of 12 345) daily* w/10 mail* 346) daily* w/10 news* 347) lie* 348) obvious* w/10 lie* 349) sex w/3 toy* 350) nipple* 351) schoolgirl 352) school w/3 girl 353) us w/3 att* 354) United w/3 states w/3 att* 355) Guggenheim 356) Pedophil* 357) Paedophil* 358) Gerbil* 359) Traffic* 360) Bed* 361) Bath* 362) Masturbate* 363) Ejaculate* 364) Masseuse* 365) Lingerie 366) Boies* 367) Mccawley* 368) Schultz* Meredith L. Schultz MLS:dk 12 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 13EXHIBIT B Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 41From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schi ller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com); 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith – I am writing to you, in compliance with the Court’s Order, to negotiate the search terms for the search of our client’s electronic devices. While Jeff raised many of these issues or ally with Brad last week, I am including them in written form so that there can be no dispute about our position. I do object to the vast number of your 368 search terms. Most are not tied to any Request for Production served on Ms. Maxwell, nor the Court’s Orders limiting those requests. Terramar – Search term 49 is “Terramar.” While we are searching our client’s terramar email address for otherwise responsive documents, this search term would pull up thousands of documents related to her work for that organization which are(a) non-responsive and (b) irrelevant to this action. We will not agree to this standalone search term. Witness Names With regard to the search terms numbered 124-341, insofar as I can tell, you have simply broken apart the first and last names of every witness included within your Rule 26 disclosures. However, you never submitted a RFP seeking allcommunications between our client and your witnesses. There are some RFPs whi ch identify individual witnesses whose communications with our client you sought (e.g., 1 – Epstein, 2, -Plaintiff, 3-Prince Andrew Kellen, Dubins,Brunel and Marcincova, 17-Gow, 37-Clintons) and I will include those names within our searches. As to other names included on the list, many are incredibly c ommon names (e.g., Bill, Mark, Phil, Pete, Bob, Mike, Todd) which you are asking to search as standalone terms, i.e., div orced from the accompanying surnames or first names. You have included the name “max*” well aware that our client’s surname, and that of all of her paternal family members, will begin with those three letters together. Your search ter ms thus are likely to yield every single email sent or received by our client, or her family members, or any other document in her possession with her own name on the document or in the metadata, in other words hundreds of thousands of no n-responsive documents. Your search terms include “bill” and thus are likely to include every bill that our client has rec eived or sent or discussed. Your search terms include Philip Barden who the court has already ruled maintains an attorney -client relationship with our client (and to the extent others are copied on his emails, those would be captured by searches for the other people’s names). You included myclient’s boyfriend of many years, though he is not on any witness list or in any RFP. In sum, I will not agree to the search terms regarding witne ss names numbered 124-341 unless you (a) provide me with an actual RFP to which they each relate, and (b) make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof). Lawyer Names What is your basis for search terms numbered 366-368: McCawley, Schultz and Boies? Likewise to the extent Mr. Edwards and Cassell are also included in the witness list, what is your basis for searching for documents referencingthem? These search terms seemed designed to pull privileged attorney-client communications and do not correspond toany RFP. We will not agree to these terms.-Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 42Common Words You have included a number of words that relate to common items and place names. Please explain which RFP allows for a search of the following terms: 50 – Southern District (which will pull up every attorney-client communication that refers to our case and includes any pleading)51 – Palm Beach (a place our client lived for many years)64 – New Mexico66-72 – USVI by various names113 – hospital114 – 116 – hotel, suite, villa (every single travel record related to our client’s travel which the Court has not ordered) 119 – 120 – Paris, France121 – 122 – Zoro, Ranch360 – Bed 361 – Bath 365 - Lingerie Other Words Many other words have no relationship to this case. Please advise me as to (a) which RFP they correspond to and (b) your good faith basis for seeking these search terms in relation to any such RFP: 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo355 – Guggenheim 358 - Gerbil Conferral Although many of your other search terms are a tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis. According to our forensic expert, running a search on Ms. Maxwell’s devices of all 368terms will take more than a week. I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. IfI do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices.That should allow a production of documents in time for Ms. Maxwell’s continued deposition next week. I am intentionally not taking a position regarding the other demands you provided in your letter of June 30 at pages 1-2. The searches will be conducted in accordance with standard practices in the industry and the Court ordered us to negotiate search terms only. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th AvenueDenver, Colorado 80203Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, a nd any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended• -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 43recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of theinformation contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received thistransmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the originaltransmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4EXHIBIT C Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 51From: Laura Menninger Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:27 PM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; 'Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com)'; ''brad@pathtoju stice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com)' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Dear Meredith, I am in receipt of your opposition to the Letter Motion to Strike your Motion for an Adverse Inference. The representations in the Response are perplexing, particularly in light of the below email communication in which Ispecifically 1) informed you of the search terms that we would run derived from your list, and 2) specifically requested a telephone conference on the issue of search terms pursuant to the Court’s Order and prior to any such search. Your representation to the Court that we are running “secret search terms unilaterally chosen by Defendant” is simply inaccurate. As clearly set forth in the below email communication, in order to move production forward, we inviteddiscussion regarding our plan to run a subset of the search terms that youselected. The items excluded from the search were those terms you proposed that were unattached to any discovery request, or would result in the selectionirrelevant documents due to the commonality of the term or their irrelevance to this case, such as TerraMar. The termsrun are not “secret” and not selected by the defense – they are “the remainder of the terms” not specifically discussedin the below email. For avoidance of doubt, it is your proposed list, excluding items 49, 50, 51, 64, 66-72, 93-94, 113, 114-116, 119-120, 121-122, 124-341, 355, 358, 360, 361, and 365, 366-368. Second, and again contrary to the representation in your Response, I specifically requested a time for a telephone conferral to discuss the search terms. Specifically, I stated “ I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. ” Despite this clear request for a call if there were issues you wished to discuss, or if you had specific RFP’s to which the excluded terms related, I heard nothing from you on Thursday afternoon or Friday to set atime to discuss the terms or the issues raised regarding overbreadth. As such, we proceeded processing your list withthe exceptions set forth. I will reiterate my offer to set a call to discuss the excluded terms to determine if there are agreeable additions. In light of the deposition scheduled for Friday and the time it takes to run searches, any call would need to be set prior to noon MT tomorrow. Please advise, one way or the other, if you are satisfied with the list or if you would like to set a call. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, a nd any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended• -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 52recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of theinformation contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received thistransmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the originaltransmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc:Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawley - Boie s, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsf llp.com); 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith – I am writing to you, in compliance with the Court’s Order, to negotiate the search terms for the search of our client’s electronic devices. While Jeff raised many of these issues or ally with Brad last week, I am including them in written form so that there can be no dispute about our position. I do object to the vast number of your 368 search terms. Most are not tied to any Request for Production served on Ms. Maxwell, nor the Court’s Orders limiting those requests.Terramar – Search term 49 is “Terramar.” While we are searching our client’s terramar email address for otherwise responsive documents, this search term would pull up thousands of documents related to her work for that organization which are(a) non-responsive and (b) irrelevant to this action. We will not agree to this standalone search term. Witness Names With regard to the search terms numbered 124-341, insofar as I can tell, you have simply broken apart the first and last names of every witness included within your Rule 26 disclosures. However, you never submitted a RFP seeking all communications between our client and your witnesses. There are some RFPs which identify individual witnesses whose communications with our client you sought (e.g., 1 – Epstein, 2, -Plaintiff, 3-Prince Andrew Kellen, Dubins,Brunel and Marcincova, 17-Gow, 37-Clintons) and I will include those names within our searches. As to other names included on the list, many are incredibly c ommon names (e.g., Bill, Mark, Phil, Pete, Bob, Mike, Todd) which you are asking to search as standalone terms, i.e., div orced from the accompanying surnames or first names. You have included the name “max*” well aware that our client’s surname, and that of all of her paternal family members, will begin with those three letters together. Your search ter ms thus are likely to yield every single email sent or received by our client, or her family members, or any other document in her possession with her own name on the document orin the metadata, in other words hundreds of thousands of no n-responsive documents. Your search terms include “bill” and thus are likely to include every bill that our client has rec eived or sent or discussed. Your search terms include Philip Barden who the court has already ruled maintains an attorney -client relationship with our client (and to the extent others are copied on his emails, those would be captured by searches for the other people’s names). You included myclient’s boyfriend of many years, though he is not on any witness list or in any RFP. In sum, I will not agree to the search terms regarding witne ss names numbered 124-341 unless you (a) provide me with an actual RFP to which they each relate, and (b) make some effort to match them to actual people who have some relationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof). Lawyer NamesCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 53What is your basis for search terms numbered 366-368: McCawley, Schultz and Boies? Likewise to the extent Mr. Edwards and Cassell are also included in the witness list, what is your basis for searching for documents referencingt h e m ?T h e s es e a r c ht e r m ss e e m e dd e s i g n e dt op u l lp r i v i l e g e da t t o r n e y - c l i e n tc o m m u n i c a t i o n sa n dd on o tc o r r e s p o n dt oany RFP. We will not agree to these terms. Common Words You have included a number of words that relate to common items and place names. Please explain which RFP allows for a search of the following terms: 50 – Southern District (which will pull up every attorney-client communication that refers to our case and includes any pleading)51 – Palm Beach (a place our client lived for many years)64 – New Mexico66-72 – USVI by various names113 – hospital 114 – 116 – hotel, suite, villa (every single travel record related to our client’s travel which the Court has not ordered) 119 – 120 – Paris, France 121 – 122 – Zoro, Ranch360 – Bed361 – Bath365 - Lingerie Other Words Many other words have no relationship to this case. Please advise me as to (a) which RFP they correspond to and (b) your good faith basis for seeking these search terms in relation to any such RFP: 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo355 – Guggenheim358 - Gerbil Conferral Although many of your other search terms are a tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis. According to our forensic expert, running a search on Ms. Maxwell’s devices of all 368terms will take more than a week. I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. If I do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices. That should allow a production of documents in time for Ms. Maxwell’s continued deposition next week. I am intentionally not taking a position regarding the other demands you provided in your letter of June 30 at pages 1-2. The searches will be conducted in accordance with standard practices in the industry and the Court ordered us tonegotiate search terms only. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628lmenninger@hmflaw.comCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 54www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, a nd any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intendedrecipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that youmust not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of theinformation contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received thistransmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the originaltransmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5EXHIBIT D Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 61From: Laura Menninger Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:33 AM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith: I write to confirm our oral conferral. Please let me know if you disagree with the following or if there is some other a g r e e m e n ty o ut h i n kw er e a c h e d : 1. I will endeavor to have my client gain access to an earthlink account that you believe is hers. Your basis for that belief is a disk you produced last week, obtained pursuant to a FOIA request, that contained at Page 2035 anaddress book from approximately 2005 which has that earthlink account name next to Ms. Maxwell’s name. 2. Terramar – You have withdrawn that as a standalone search term. I have represented to you that we have searched all Terramar emails for otherwise responsive documents as well as 3. Witness names – You believe that search terms 124-341, which are witness names broken up into first and last names from your Rule 26 list, relate to your RFP number 5 (“All documents relating to massages…”). I represented to you that I have searched for the terms “massage,” “masseur,” “therapy” etc. as you requested, but you would still like me to search a subset of 124-341 surnames names for all communications with certainwitnesses that you believe relate to “massages.” I said I would look at your list, when you send it, and evaluatewhether we still object to running those more limited names to see if there are any communications that “relateto massages.” I still object that the search terms involving names is too broad and burdensome for me to haveto review all communications with those individuals to try to discern what you believe may or may not relate toa “massage.” 4. Lawyer names – You have withdrawn. 5. Common words – You have withdrawn with the exception of “lingerie,” which I will run to see if it relates in some way to RFP 5 (“massages”). 6. Other words – a. You have withdrawn #93 Abernathy and #94 Brillo. b. I maintain my objection to Guggenheim, the name of a museum which you represented to me pertains in some way to allegations made by witnesses Farmer , but for which no documents or other information has been shared (i.e., I have never seen any allegations by witnesses Farmer). Because there is no RFP towhich I believe that term relates, and it is the name of a museum, I object to running that search term. c. Gerbil – You have withdrawn. 7. Additionally: a. I advised you that I was not able to search for # because those letters are the first part of my client’s longstanding email address, and search for th at term will yield literally every single email she has sent or received. I believe you have withdrawn that requested search term. b. I advised you that I was not able to search for initials at #16-21 and 75-77. To the extent those initials represent people from whom you have requested all communications (and which the Court has limitedto 1999-2002 and post-2002 as they relate to sex trafficking), for example, Jeffrey Epstein, PrinceAndrew, I am searching for and producing responsive documents, so there is no need to search for the- -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 62initials. With regards to , you told me that is “ and there is no standalone request for communications with her. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, a nd any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that youmust not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of theinformation contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received thistransmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the originaltransmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:27 PM To: 'Meredith Schultz' Cc:Jeff Pagliuca; 'Sigrid S. McCawley - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (smccawley@bsfllp.com)'; ''brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com)' Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Dear Meredith, I am in receipt of your opposition to the Letter Motion to Strike your Motion for an Adverse Inference. The representations in the Response are perplexing, particularly in light of the below email communication in which Ispecifically 1) informed you of the search terms that we would run derived from your list, and 2) specifically requested atelephone conference on the issue of search terms pursuant to the Court’s Order and prior to any such search. Your representation to the Court that we are running “secret search terms unilaterally chosen by Defendant” is simply inaccurate. As clearly set forth in the below email communication, in order to move production forward, we inviteddiscussion regarding our plan to ru nas u b s e to ft h es e a r c ht e r m st h a t youselected. The items excluded from the search were those terms you proposed that were unattached to any discovery request, or would result in the selectionirrelevant documents due to the commonality of the term or th eir irrelevance to this case, such as TerraMar. The terms run are not “secret” and not selected by the defense – they are “the remainder of the terms” not specifically discussedin the below email. For avoidance of doubt, it is your proposed list, excluding items 49, 50, 51, 64, 66-72, 93-94, 113, 114-116, 119-120, 121-122, 124-341, 355, 358, 360, 361, and 365, 366-368. Second, and again contrary to the representation in your Response, I specifically requested a time for a telephone conferral to discuss the search terms. Specifically, I stated “ I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. ” Despite this clear request for a call if there were issues you wished to discuss, or if you had specific RFP’s to which the excluded terms related, I heard nothing from you on Thursday afternoon or Friday to set a■ - • --Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 63time to discuss the terms or the issues raised regarding overbreadth. As such, we proceeded processing your list with the exceptions set forth. I will reiterate my offer to set a call to discuss the excluded terms to determine if there are agreeable additions. In light of the deposition scheduled for Friday and the time it takes to run searches, any call would need to be set prior to noon MT tomorrow. Please advise, one way or the other, if you are satisfied with the list or if you would like to set a call. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, a nd any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that youmust not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of theinformation contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received thistransmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the originaltransmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you. From: Laura Menninger Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: Meredith Schultz Cc:Jeff Pagliuca; Sigrid S. McCawle y - Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ( smccawley@bsfllp.com ); 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com ) Subject: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith – I am writing to you, in compliance with the Court’s Order, to negotiate the search terms for the search of our client’s electronic devices. While Jeff raised many of these issues or ally with Brad last week, I am including them in written form so that there can be no dispute about our position. I do object to the vast number of your 368 search terms. Most are not tied to any Request for Production served on Ms. Maxwell, nor the Court’s Orders limiting those requests.Terramar – Search term 49 is “Terramar.” While we are searching our client’s terramar email address for otherwise responsive documents, this search term would pull up thousands of documents related to her work for that organization which are (a) non-responsive and (b) irrelevant to this action. We will not agree to this standalone search term. Witness Names• -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 64With regard to the search terms numbered 124-341, insofar as I can tell, you have simply broken apart the first and last names of every witness included within your Rule 26 disclosures. However, you never submitted a RFP seeking allcommunications between our client and your witnesses. There are some RFPs which identify individual witnesses whosecommunications with our client you sought (e.g., 1 – Epstein, 2, -Plaintiff, 3-Prince Andrew Kellen, Dubins,Brunel and Marcincova, 17-Gow, 37-Clintons) and I will include those names within our searches. As to other names included on the list, many are incredibly c ommon names (e.g., Bill, Mark, Phil, Pete, Bob, Mike, Todd) which you are asking to search as standalone terms, i.e., div orced from the accompanying surnames or first names. You have included the name “max*” well aware that our client’s surname, and that of all of her paternal family members,will begin with those three letters together. Your search ter ms thus are likely to yield every single email sent or received by our client, or her family members, or any other document in her possession with her own name on the document orin the metadata, in other words hundreds of thousands of no n-responsive documents. Your search terms include “bill” and thus are likely to include every bill that our client has rec eived or sent or discussed. Your search terms include Philip Barden who the court has already ruled maintains an attorney -client relationship with our client (and to the extent others are copied on his emails, those would be captured by searches for the other people’s names). You included my client’s boyfriend of many years, though he is not on any witness list or in any RFP. In sum, I will not agree to the search terms regarding witne ss names numbered 124-341 unless you (a) provide me with an actual RFP to which they each relate, and (b) make some effort to match them to actual people who have somerelationship to this case (like first name /3 last name or some parts thereof). Lawyer Names What is your basis for search terms numbered 366-368: McCawley, Schultz and Boies? Likewise to the extent Mr. Edwards and Cassell are also included in the witness list, what is your basis for searching for documents referencingt h e m ?T h e s es e a r c ht e r m ss e e m e dd e s i g n e dt op u l lp r i v i l e g e da t t o r n e y - c l i e n tc o m m u n i c a t i o n sa n dd on o tc o r r e s p o n dt o any RFP. We will not agree to these terms. Common Words You have included a number of words that relate to common items and place names. Please explain which RFP allows for a search of the following terms: 50 – Southern District (which will pull up every attorney-client communication that refers to our case and includes any pleading)51 – Palm Beach (a place our client lived for many years)64 – New Mexico 66-72 – USVI by various names 113 – hospital114 – 116 – hotel, suite, villa (every single travel record related to our client’s travel which the Court has not ordered) 119 – 120 – Paris, France121 – 122 – Zoro, Ranch360 – Bed361 – Bath365 - Lingerie Other Words Many other words have no relationship to this case. Please advise me as to (a) which RFP they correspond to and (b) your good faith basis for seeking these search terms in relation to any such RFP: 93 – Abernathy 94 – Brillo355 – Guggenheim358 - GerbilCase 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 65Conferral Although many of your other search terms are a tremendous stretch, I can agree to them in the interest of getting the search done on a timely basis. According to our forensic expert, running a search on Ms. Maxwell’s devices of all 368terms will take more than a week. I am available by telephone today and tomorrow to discuss the issues raised herein. If I do not hear from you, I will presume that you are in agreement to the remainder of the terms being run on the devices. That should allow a production of documents in time for Ms. Maxwell’s continued deposition next week. I am intentionally not taking a position regarding the other demands you provided in your letter of June 30 at pages 1-2. The searches will be conducted in accordance with standard practices in the industry and the Court ordered us tonegotiate search terms only. -Laura Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.150 East 10th AvenueDenver, Colorado 80203 Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com www.hmflaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, a nd any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that youmust not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the originaltransmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.• -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6EXHIBIT E Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 61From: Meredith Schultz Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:24 AM To: Laura Menninger Cc: Sigrid McCawley; Jeff Pagliuca; Brad Edwar ds; Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu) Subject: RE: Conferral regarding forensic search Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged Laura, Please see my additions in-line, in black , below to your email sent yesterday. My in-line communication should also be responsive to the email that you just sent . If I have left anything out, please let me know. Thanks,MeredithMeredith L. Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4204Fax: 954-356-0022http://www.bsfllp.com From: Laura Menninger [ mailto:lmenninger@hmflaw.com ] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:33 PM To:Meredith Schultz Subject: RE: Giuffre - Conferral regarding search terms Meredith: I write to confirm our oral conferral. Please let me know if you disagree with the following or if there is some other agreement you think we reached: 1.I will endeavor to have my client gain access to an earthlin k account that you believe is hers. Your basis for that belief is a disk you produced last week, obtained pursuant to a FOIA request, that contained at Page 2035 an address book from approximately 2005 which has that earthlink account name next to Ms. Maxwell’s name. Please advise of the processes you are undertaking to access the account, and the process you undertook toascertain that the mindspring account no longer exists. 2.Terramar – You have withdrawn that as a standalone search term. I have represented to you that we have searched all Terramar emails for otherwise responsive documents as well as . 3.Witness names – You believe that search terms 124-341, which are witness names broken up into first and last names from your Rule 26 list, relate to your RFP number 5 (“All documents relating to massages…”). Irepresented to you that I have searched for the terms “massage,” “masseur,” “therapy” etc. as you requested, -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 62but you would still like me to search a subset of 124-341 surnames names for all communications with certain witnesses that you believe relate to “massages.” I said I would look at your list, when you send it, and evaluatewhether we still object to running those more limited names to see if there are any communications that “relateto massages.” I still object that the search terms involving names is too broad and burdensome for me to haveto review all communications with those individuals to try to discern what you believe may or may not relate to a “massage.” I disagree with your objection that reviewing (and produc ing relevant) documents containing these discrete surnames is too broad a request or overly burdensome, particularly, as you have not presented any numbers of documents associated with those names, since you have not yet run the terms. Should one of the namessomehow yield thousands of documents, please let me know, and I’m certain we can come to an agreement toadjust the term so as to not yield an unmanageable resul t. As it is, I would expect these discrete surnames to yield a reasonable number of “hits,” as most are not common words (more on that below). Per our conversation, there are a number of individuals who we have reason to believe were either:(1) victims of the “massages;” (2) witnesses the “massages” (including pe ople who have knowledge of the “massages”); or (3) perpetrators of the “massages,” either by having a “massage” themselves, arranging for another to have a“massage,” or by arranging for a girl to give a “massage” (either directly or through another girl). The following are surnames of the aforementioned individuals, all of which are taken from the parties’ Rule 26 disclosures. Individuals who possess the same last name will be represented once by the common name. Namesenumerated in Plaintiff’s individual requests are absent from this list pursuant to your representation that thosenames have been run. The vast majority of the surnames are fairly uncommon (e.g., ), therefore, Iassume from the outset that any “hits” they yield will relate to the individual, and be limited in number. Forthose surnames are more common, or have other meanings (e.g., ), I have noted the full name forease of reference. For those names, please use a reasona ble, good-faith syntax to capture communications with those individuals -- Sometimes that takes some trial-and-error – I’m happy tobe of any assistance with regard to that process. Please let me know what your syntax you ended up using forthose terms. xAlessi xBiddle xBrunel xCasey (this is a sur-name to Caroly Casey) xChambers xCordero xCotrin xCousteau xDavies xDeGeorgieou xDionne xDubin xEspinoza xFarmer xWard xFekkaiJane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2- -- -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 63xFigueroa xFontanilla xFriedman xGibson-Butte xGramza xGany xGrant xGroff xHazel (surname of Claire Hazel) xHarrison (surname of Shelley Harrison) xIgnatieva xKovylina xLiffman xLopez (surname of Cindy Lopez) xLutz xLynch (surname of Cheri Lynch) xMeister xMellawa xMinsky xMitrovich xMullen xPagano xPaluga xPeadon xPritzker xPreece xRabuyo xRizzo xRobson xRoss (surname of Adriana) xMucinska (former surname of Adriana) xSjoberg xSpamm xStein (surname of Cecilia) xValdes (surname of Cresenda) xVazquez xValenzuela xVisosky xWexner xWild (surname of Courtney) xZinoview 4.Lawyer names – You have withdrawn.Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 J-- -I -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 645.Common words – You have withdrawn with the exception of “lingerie,” which I will run to see if it relates in some way to RFP 5 (“massages”). 6.Other words – a.You have withdrawn #93 Abernathy and #94 Brillo. b.I maintain my objection to Guggenheim, the name of a museum which you represented to me pertains in some way to allegations made by witnesses Farmer, but for which no documents or other information has been shared (i.e., I have never seen any allegations by witnesses Farmer). Because there is no RFP towhich I believe that term relates, and it is the name of a museum, I object to running that search term. c.Gerbil – You have withdrawn. 7.Additionally: a.I advised you that I was not able to search for because those letters are the first part of my client’s longstanding email address, and search for th at term will yield literally every single email she has sent or received. I believe you have withdrawn that requested search term. b.I advised you that I was not able to search for initials at #16-21 and 75-77. To the extent those initials represent people from whom you have requested all communications (and which the Court has limitedto 1999-2002 and post-2002 as they relate to sex trafficking), for example, Jeffrey Epstein, PrinceAndrew, I am searching for and producing responsive documents, so there is no need to search for theinitials. With regards to , you told me that is “ and there is no standalone request forcommunications with her. -Laura Additionally, please inform me what steps you have taken to ascertain that the is no longer in existence. Similarly, please keep me informed of your steps to access the Please pursue allavailable avenues to access those accounts, as Ms . Giuffre did with regard to her email accounts. Finally, Ms. Maxwell’s produced documents that indicat e that she has an iPad, etc. Please confirm that you have imaged her iPad as well as her phone in order to obtain the data from both (text messages, etc.). One last thing - it occurred to me that in our discussion of terms that were run/not run and to be run/and not to be run, I don’t believe we discussed the terms containing individuals’ email account addresses, specifically Mr. Epstein and Mr. Dershowitz. (If we did discuss that, apologies for my lack of memory). Please confirm that youhave run the terms associated with their email addresses. Specifically, these were the terms: 1) jeevacation* 2) j* w/2 *jep* 3) j* w/2 *jeep*4) dersh* 5)law.harvard.edu* 6) alandersh* Please let me know if you have any questions. Please treat this email as confidential under the Protective Order as it contains the names of underage victims of sexual abuse. Thank you,- ■ -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 65Meredith Meredith L. Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4204Fax: 954-356-0022http://www.bsfllp.com From: Laura Menninger [mailto:lmenninger@hmflaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:01 PM To:Meredith Schultz Cc:Sigrid McCawley; Jeff Pagliuca; Brad Edwards; Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu) Subject: Conferral regarding forensic search Meredith – Apart from (i) the list of witness names you believe might be associated with the term “massage” (“massage” and related terms that you requested have been searched), (ii) the word “lingerie”, and (iii) we have completed the forensic copy, search, retr ieval and review of all hits on our client’s devices and email accounts as directed by the Court based on agr eed to search terms, including those agreed to in our conferral yesterday. After review of more than 9,000 documents and files contai ning your search terms, the only documents located not previously produced are 6 privileged documents which we will add to our log. We also located a number of privileged communications between our client and myself following the onset of litigation in this case which will not be logged consistent with both parties' agreed to practice. As predicted, no responsive non-privileged documents resulted from the exercise. I will keep you apprised of the results of the “lingerie” and status of ability to access the account. If you want me to consider running additional w itness names because you believe those people may relate to RFP 5 regarding “massages”, please forward those names to me and your basis. -Laura The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contain information that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. I f the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that anydissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]-Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6EXHIBIT F Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 51 Search Terms Defendant Has Already Searched From Plaintiff’s June 30th proposed list: (note: Plaintiff’s numbers have been used) 1) jef* 2) geof* 3) epst! !n* 4) jeevacation* 5) j* w/2 *jep* 6) j* w/2 *jeep* 7) roberts* 8) g!!ff!!* 9) virginia* 10) jenna* 11) jena* 12) genna* 13) andrew* 14) prince* 15) royal* 22) massage* 23) masseur* 24) therapist* 26) mindspring* 28) emmy* 29) taylor* 30) sara* 31) kellen* 32) kensington * 33) vikers* 34) dubin* 35) eva* 36) glen* 37) brunel* 38) jean* 39) luc* 40) nadia* 41) marcinko* 42) *copter* 43) chopper* 44) pilot* 45) manifest* 46) log* 47) flight* 48) passport* 52) state* /3 attorney* 53) ross* 54) gow* 55) acuity* 56) victoria* w/3 secret* Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5257) al!n* 58) all!n* 59) dersh* 60) law.harvard .edu * 61) alandersh* 73) lago* 74) clinton* 75) BC 76) HC 77) HRC 78) police* 79) cop* 80) fbi* 81) federal* w/3 bur* 82) bur* w/8 inves! * 83) sex* 84) abuse* 85) toy* 86) dildo* 87) strap* w/3 on* 88) vibr* 89) sm* w/3 101 * 90) slave* 91) erotic* 92) servitude* 95) high* w/3 school* 96) secondary* w /3 school* 97) campus* 98) duke* 99) york* 100) licen!e* 101) assault * 102) juvenile* 103) seal* 104) joint* w /3 defen* 105) jda 106) roadhouse* 107) grill* 108) illegal* 109) immune * 110) prosecut* 111) law* w /3 enforc* 112) jane* w/3 *doe* 117) model* 118) actress* 123) vanity* w/ 3 fair* 342) underage* Jane Doe 2Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 53343) under!age* 344) minor* 345) daily* w/10 mail* 346) daily* w/10 news* 347) lie* 348) obvious* w/10 lie* 349) sex w/3 toy* 350) nipple* 351) schoolgirl 352) school w/3 girl 353) us w/3 att* 354) United w/3 states w/3 att* 356) Pedophil* 357) Paedophil* 359) Traffic* 362) Masturbate* 363) Ejaculate* 364) Masseuse* From Plaintiff’s July 20 proposed list xAlessi x Biddle x Brunel x Casey (this is a sur-name to Caroly Casey) x Chambers x Cordero x Cotrin x Cousteau x Davies x DeGeorgieou x Dionne x Dubin x x Espinoza x Farmer x Ward x Fekkai x Figueroa x Fontanilla x Friedman x Gibson-Butte x Gramza x Gany x Grant x Groff Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2I - I - -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 54 x Hazel (surname of Claire Hazel) x Harrison (surname of Shelley Harrison) x Ignatieva x Kovylina x Liffman x Lopez (surname of Cindy Lopez) x Lutz x Lynch (surname of Cheri Lynch) x Meister x Mellawa x Minsky x Mitrovich x x Mullen x Pagano x Paluga x Peadon x Pritzker x Preece x Rabuyo x Rizzo x Robson x Ross (surname of Adriana) x Mucinska (former surname of Adriana) x Sjoberg x Spamm x Stein (surname of Cecilia) x Taylor x Valdes (surname of Cresenda) x Vazquez x Valenzuela x Visosky x Wexner x Wild (surname of Courtney) x Zinoview Jane Doe Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2 Jane Doe 2I - I I I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-18 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 51 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION BASED ON NEW INFORMATION Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Supplement to her Motion for Adverse Inferenc e Instruction Based on New Information. Eleven months into this case, and after the close of fact discovery, Defendant continues to refuse to abide by her most basic and fundamental discovery obligations. A summary of this ongoing and willful non-compliance, as well as a supplemen t to her motion for an adverse inference instruction based on new information, follows. Mo st notably, Defendant claims to have run search terms and reviewed over 10,000 documen ts, but, remarkably, claims that not a single document - not one - is relevant to this litigation, and therefore produced nothing with respect to the search. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 27, 2015, Ms. Giuffre submitted her first set of Requests for Production. Defendant failed to make a reasonable search or production of her documents, and Ms. Giuffre sought relief from the Court numerous times: -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 212 x Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (DE 20) - Defendant’s Motion to Stay - Denied (DE 28). x Plaintiff’s February 26, 2016 Letter Motion to Compel Defendant to Sit for Her Deposition (DE 63) - Granted (DE 106). x Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege (DE 33) - Granted in Part (DE 73). x Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Objections (DE 35) - Granted in part (106). x Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to De fendant’s Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Defendant’s Deposition (DE 70) - Defendant’s Motion Denied (DE 106). x Plaintiff’s Moti on for Forensic Examination (DE 96) - Granted in part (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order). x Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 143) – Granted (June 20, 2016 Sealed Order). x Plaintiff’s Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 279) - Pending. x Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 315) - Pending. On June 20, 2016, this Court Granted in Part Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for Forensic Exam, and directed Defendant to capture her data a nd run mutually agreed-upon search terms. The Court also ordered Defendant to produce documents to Ms. Giuffre by July 11, 2016. (This part of the Court’s Order is not under seal and can be found at DE 264 -1). On June 30, 2016, and on July 8, 2016, counsel for Ms. Giuffre sent letters to Defendant following up on this Order and proposing search terms (attached as exhibits to DE 279). Defendant did not respond. The July 11, 2016, deadline passed without any production from Defendant. On July 13, 2016, Ms. Giuffre moved for an adverse inference instruction (DE 279). Thereafter, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike Ms. Giuffre’s motion for an adverse inference instruction, directing the parties to submit search terms to the Court on August 1, 2016, advising that “[a] briefing schedule and the submission date will be set after search terms are determined. ” (DE 301). Pursuant to this Court’s July 22, 2016, on Monday, August 1, 2016, Ms. Giuffre filed the list of search terms that Ms. Giuffre believes should be run over Defendant’s data. (DE 323). • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 213 II. DISCUSSION At a minimum, the Court should direct Defe ndant to run the search terms in the list originally submitted by Ms. Giuffre. More broadly, the Court should grant Ms. Giuffre’s request for an adverse inference based on the incurable prejudice she has suffered as a result of Defendant’s failure to comply with her discovery obligations and this Court’s June 20, 2016, Order. A. Defendant’s Refusal to Even Run Ms. Giuffre’s Name as a Search Term. Defendant has been recalcitrant in running even the most basic searches of electronic data. For example, in a letter sent on June 8, 2016, and in a meet and confer call on July 26, 2016, counsel for Ms. Giuffre asked Defendant to run Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term to find documents responsive to (for example) Ms. Giuffre’s Request No. 12, which sought Defendant’s documents relating to Ms. Giuffre. That request was refused in writing on Friday, July 29, 2016, at 7:02 p.m. (EST). See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1, July 29, 2016, 7:02 p.m., Letter from Ty Gee to Ms. Schultz (refusing to run Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term as part of effort to identify responsive documents). Specif ically, Mr. Gee’s letter said that such a search term was inappropriate because it was “guaranteed” to generate “thousands of hits” : -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 214 Having represented that running Ms. Giuffre’s that name was an “extraordinary and unreasonable” task “ guaranteed to have thousands of hits, and someone would have to review every hit …” (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 1 at pg. 2 (emphasis added)), a mere three days later , on Monday, August 1, 2016, Defendant seemingly reversed her position, and represented to the Court that she had , in fact, run Ms. Giuffre’s names as search terms. (DE 321 -6). But, contrary to the previous claim that it would be enormously burdensome to sort through these “hits,” Defendant now claimed that she had not found any responsive documents. It is possible that Defendant changed her mind over the weekend and reversed course. And, it is possible that Defendant did run those recently-contested terms over the weekend. And, it is possible that Defendant, over the weeke nd, gathered a team of lawyers to review the “thousands of hits” yielded by those terms. And, it is possible that not a single one of Defendant’s thousands of documents bearing Ms. Giuffre’s name was relevant to this action. All these things are possible, but none is likely. Either way, Defendan t’s refusal to even include Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term (either in reality or in the position she took on Friday) is evidence of Defenda nt’s continued bad faith and complete avoidance of her discovery obligations. The case centers on Defendant’s In your June 8 letter, apparently acknowledging the overbreadth of the RFP, you suggest the defendant could respond by conducting an electronic search for plaintiff's various names-searching all documents in defendant's possession. Setting aside that this is not what the RFP asked for, that too would entail an extraordinary and unreasonable amount of time and money, since plaintiff's various names are guaranteed to have thousands of hits, and someone would have to review every hit to determine, e.g., whether the document previously was provided to you, whether the document is not subject to production because of privilege, or whether it was a false hit. What would be the purpose of such an enormous expenditure of time and money? You have not said, but it appears fairly obvious that this is fishing with a drift net. We decline your request to engage in this exercise. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 215 defamatory statements made about Ms. Giuffre . Obviously, Ms. Giuffre has a compelling need to obtain Defendant’s documents about her, a nd she has accordingly requested Defendant’s communications concerning her . Defendant’s documents concerning Ms. Giuffre are directly relevant to this action, particularly because Defendan t has created multiple drafts of statements to the press defaming Ms. Giuffre. Throughout the months of motion practice concerning these issues, and throughout all of the meet and confers, Defendant’s counsel ha s never presented a case supporting the far-fetched position that documents in the possession of the De fendant, and containing explicit references to Ms. Giuffre , are irrelevant and not subject to discovery. Defendant’s refusal to use Ms. Giuffre’s name as a search term, in light of Ms. Giuffre ’s requests for production, and in light of the defamation claim in this case, is so unfounded and obstructionist that it constitutes a violation of this Court’s Order , whether or not Defendant actually engaged in the “extraordinary and unreasonable” task of running the term over the weekend. The refusal to run this term is particularly inappropriate in light of this Court’s order directing the Defendant to run “mutually agreed” upon search term s. It is impossible for Ms. Giuffre’s counsel to begin working with opposing counsel to craft appropri ate search terms when they refuse to extend minimal cooperation - first by completely ignoring Ms. Giuffre’s multiple attempts to negotiate terms, then by ignoring the deadline to produce documents, and then by refusal to run the most basic search term. The first term that should be run in this defamation action - the most fundamental term - is Ms. Giuffre’s name. Defendant’s refusal to run that term is palpably unreasonable. Defendant’s refusal to cooperate is even more egregious given Ms. Giuffre’s extensive efforts to provide discovery to Defendant. Ms . Giuffre has complied with Defendant’s overly -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 216 broad discovery requests that sought documents concerning dozens of individuals, including Ms. Giuffre’s close family members. To comply with these extraordinarily broad requests, Ms. Giuffre ran search terms constituting the names of all these individuals. For example, Ms. Giuffre has run the following names as search terms, including Defendant’s name, over her data: x Ghislaine (the defendant) x Maxwell (the defendant) x Jeffrey (Jeffrey Epstein) x Epstein (Jeffrey Epstein) x Sky Roberts (the name Ms. Giuffre’s father and brother) x Lynn, Roberts (the name of Ms. Giuffre’s mother) Indeed, to date Ms. Giuffre has produced 8,321 pages of documents in her possession. Fact discovery has now closed. Ms. Giuffre has requested that Defendant negotiate search terms with her as far back as March 10, 2016. This Court ordered Defendant to run mutually agreed upon search terms and produce relevant do cuments. Yet Defendant has yet to make any document production pursuant to this Court’s June 20, 2016 , Order. B. Defendant ’s Other Failures to Produce Documents Defendant ’s ignoring the July 11, 2016, court-ordered deadline to produce documents pursuant to mutually agreed upon terms, and Defendant’s recalcitrance in searching for documents related to Ms. Giuffre are not the only examples of Defendant’s failure to make appropriate discovery. Defendant claims to have run a number of Ms. Giuffre’s search terms, yet claims that such a search yielded no responsive documents, save the few added to Defendant’s privilege log. Defendant did not provide any “hit” information to show wh ich terms yielded results, or how many results they yielded. Defendant claims to have reviewed over 10,000 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 217 documents containing the search terms and remarkably states that none – not a single one of the documents are responsive or relevant to the issues in this matter. Defendant’s representation is simply implausible , as a review of Defendant’s interactions with several of the important players in this case makes clear. i. Ross Gow The Court will recall that Ross Gow is Defendant’s London -based press agent, who shares Defendant’s attorney, Philip Barden, and who was connected with Defendant’s statements about Ms. Giuffre in both 2011 and 2015. Defendant admitted that she used Mr. Gow in 2011 in relation to Ms. Giuffre’s claims: Q. And then below there is an email from Philip Barden to you and cc'ing Ross Gow on January 11, 2015. Do you see that? A. Uh-huh. Q. It says, Dear Ghislaine, as you know I have been working behind the scenes and this article comes from that. It helps but doesn't answer the VR claims. I will get the criminal allegations out. This shows the MOS will print truth, not just a VR voice piece. We can only make the truth by makin g a statement. What did he mean when he said, I will get the criminal allegations out, what was he referring to? A. I have no idea. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 405:13-406:7 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Defendant has admitted that she again used Mr. Gow in 2015 to issue a statement relating to Ms. Giuffre: Q. This is an email from you on January 10, 2015 to Philip Barden and Ross Gow. The statement you had before you earlier, that, if you can pull that in front of you, the one page press release that you gave. Y ou might know from memory. Was the press release that you issued with the statement about Virginia issued in or around January 2, 2015? A. As best as I can recollect. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 361:4-13 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 218 Indeed, Defendant retained counsel to further assist Mr. Gow: Q. Did you authorize Ross Gow to issue that statement on your behalf in January of 2015? A. I already testified that that was done by my lawyers. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 273:6-10 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). In both years, 2011 and 2015, Defendant communicated with her counsel, communicated with her public relations agent, and caused a statement regarding Ms. Giuffre to be released publically, whereupon it was disseminated abroad. Yet, Defendant claims that she has no communications related to Ms. Giuffre beyond the handful of communications this Court ordered her to produce after the Court’s in camera review. (DE 73). ii. Eva Dubin Defendant also appears to be claiming that she had not had even a single communications with Eva Dubin , Defendant’s long -time friend whose husband was implicated in sexual abuse by Ms. Giuffre’s deposition testimony. Defendant admitted that she is friends with Eva Dubin and admitted to visiting her home from time to time. Q. Is Eva Dubin one of your friends? A. Yes. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 57:22-23 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Q. You remember from time to time being at the Dubin residence, correct? A. I do. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 163:6-8 (July 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 3). The Dubins are closely connected to this case. Indeed, Rinaldo Rizzo , the Dubins’ butler, was in tears as he recounted Defendant bringing a fifteen-year-old girl to Eva Dubin’s home. The girl, in utmost distress, told Mr. Rizzo th at Defendant had stolen her passport and tried to make her have sex with Epstein on his private isla nd, and then threatened her. Rizzo Dep. Tr. at Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 219 52:8-57:23 (June 10, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4). Ms. Giuffre has also implicated Eva Dubin’s husband, Glen Dubin, as someone who wa s involved in Defendant and Epstein’s sex trafficking ring. And yet, Defendant would have the Court believe that Defendant and her friend never communicated about Ms. Giuffre’s testimony. There are no emails; no text messages produced. iii. : Q. Do you remember speaking with a female by the name of ? A. Yes. Q. And is that -- did you learn from about ? THE WITNESS: That's correct. Q. And what did you understand interaction with Jeffrey Epstein to be? THE WITNESS: was allegedly dating Jeffrey Epstein at the time. And s and were roommates. During that time, had met with and went shopping with her at the Palm B each Mall, where they purchased items from Victoria's Secrets. After spending the day together, they went over to the Palm Beach house, where Epstein requested to see what was purchased. She was a little reluctant initially, but because of the fact that it was his money that purchased the items, she showed the outfit that she had purchased at Victoria's Secrets. He had asked her to try it on, at which time she did. She went back to the house at another time, where she was going to meet with and Epstein. They went for a bike ride, but had a - - - - - -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 2110 massage, which Epstein walked in on while she was getting a massage. He asked her to turn over, expose her breasts to him. I think he performed a chiropractic move on her. And she was completely uncomfortable with the whole situation. Recarey Dep. Tr. at 106:2-107:20 (June 21, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5). Indeed, one of the witnesses w ho gave testimony in this case, Even Defendant has admitted involvement with her and Epstein: Q. Does know Jeffrey Epstein? A. Can you ask again, please? Q. Does know Jeffrey Epstein? A. What do you mean by know? Q. Has she met her him before? A. I can't recollect a time when -- I've seen with Jeffrey but -- Q. You are not sure -- A. I know they know either other. I can't testify to a meeting between them. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 270:18-271:8 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Q. Why do you think that might know Jeffrey?~------ -~---Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 2111 A. Because you know, I know Jeffrey. Maxwell Dep. Tr. at 271:18-22 (April 22, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2). Yet, Maxwell now wants this court to believe that she has no responsive communications with relevant to this case. C. Defendant’s Failures to Search All Email Accounts Perhaps part of the reason that Defendant has failed to produce responsive document is that still refusing to collect data from all of her email accounts. In particular, Defendant has not collected data from her account nor produced relevant documents from her account. Both email accounts are listed as part of Defendant’s contact information gathered by the police from Epstein’s home , and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of the investigation and prosecution of Epstein: See(DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attor ney’s Office, Public Records Request No.: 16 - 268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843). i. The mindspring.com Account As evidenced from the police collection above, , was an email address Defendant used while she was with Epstein. Id. In her filing with this Court, Defendant represented that this was merely a “spam” account “to use when registering for retail sales notifications and the like,” and that it contains no relevant documents. Br. at pg. 8. Of course, if she wasn’t using the or the , what email address wasDefendant using while she was with Epstein, and why hasn’t that account been disclosed and searched? This Court should order Defendant to disclose allemail accounts she has used from 1999 to the present. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 2112 At any rate, both recent testimony in this case, and older testimony in a related case, completely belies Defendant’s claim that her account was merely for “spam.” Jeffrey Epstei n’s house manager, Juan Alessi testified that was in daily use by the Epstein household to send and receive messages, a household to which Defendant belonged: Q. So when there would be a message from one of them while they were out of town, they would call you, call you on the telephone? A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years. Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked there and you would receive a message that they were coming into town, would that be by way of telephone? A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at the house, that it was MindSpring, MindSpring I think it's called, that it was like a message system that would come from the office. Q. What is MindSpring? A. It was a server. I think it was -- the of fice would have, like, a message system between him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They would write a message on the computer. There was no email at that time. Q. Okay. So what computer would you use? A. My computer in my office. Q. And so was part of your daily routine to go to your computer and check to see if you had MindSpring messages? A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That was the very end of my stay. I didn't get involved with that too much. But it was a message system that Jeffrey received every two, three hours, with all the messages that would have to go to the office in New York, and they will print it and send it faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him. Q. Did it look like the message pads that we've been looking at? A. No, no, nothing like that. Q. Was it typed-out messages? -c============-=-=-=-= -=iiiiiiiiiiiii Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 2113 A. Yes, typed-out messages. Q. Just explain one example of how it would work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to send him a message on MindSpring. How would that work? A. An example? Q. Sure. A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking to me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the office; the office would type it; they would send it to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey wants an orange juice out by the pool. Q. He would call the office in New York. They would then type it in MindSpring? A. Send it to me. Q. How would you know to check for it? How would you know to look for this MindSpring? A. Because I was in the office. I was there. I was there. And we have a signal when it come on and says, Hey, you've got mail. Q. Okay. A. Every day. Every day it was new things put in. That's why I left, too. Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring system? A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer guy who worked only for Jeffrey. Mark. Mark Lumber. Q. Was he local to Palm Beach? A. No. He was in New York. Everything was set up from New York. And Mark Lumber, I remember he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the house. Alessi Dep. Tr. at 223:5-225:17. (June 1, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7). Accordingly, mindspring was a server set up for Jeffrey Epstein and his household to use to communicate to one another, and was, in fact, used in this manner. - -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 2114 The sworn testimony of Janusz Banasiak, another of Epstein’s house managers, from the case L.M. v. Jeffery Epstein and Sarah Kellen ,1 gives a fuller representation of how Defendant, and others in Epstein’s sex -trafficking ring, used their accounts on Epstein’ s mindspring server: Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein used a Citrix program to link various computers? Did you know that? A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for exchanging e-mails and get through Internet. *** Q. That's not something that you were, you were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the loop of the sharing of information in the house in terms of the computers being connected through any server? A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer your question because Citrix is for the whole organization to exchange e-mail between employees. Q. All right. You used the term? A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. I can receive mail and I can e-mail information to employee within organization. But I don't know if you can see to each computer what is going on on another computer. *** Q. You have used the term organization, you can share within the organization. What do you -- just so I can understand what you're calling the organization, what do you mean by that word? A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are a few groups of people, his office in New York and I guess -- *** Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute but first just so we stay on the track of who was in the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and Nadia Marcinkova all people that you would also consider within the organization? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names to it. Who else would you consider, Ghislaine Maxwell? 1 Case No.: 502008CA28051XXXXMB AB, In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 2115 A. Yes. 56:13-17; 5:2-14; 58:1-7; 60:21-61:7 (February 16, 2010) (Emphasis added) (McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 8). Defendant’s email account was part of Epstein’s account through which he communicated with his employees and other members of his household, including his co-conspirators Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and the Defendant. This email account likely has (or had) myriad of communications between and among Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant and Sarah Kellen, Defendant and Nadia Marcinkova, and others. This email account is the one most likely to have the most relevant documents in this case, as it was used by Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking organization. The fact that this account - an account created for the sole purpose of enabling Defendant and others to communicate with Jeffrey Epstein - has no communications with Epstein or the other co-conspirators, is extremely strong indicia that someone destroyed those email communications. Their destruction warrants an adverse inference instruction. And, at the very least, the Court should direct Defendant to retrieve her data from the Citrix server or any other applicable server upon which the mindspring.com account was hosted. ii. The Account The account bears Defendant’s initials, and, again, listed as part of her contact information gather ed by the police from Epstein’s home , and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of the investigation and prosecution of Epstein: -- M Gh laine axweU Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 2116 See (DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Of fice, Public Records Request No.: 16 - 268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843) Because of Defendant’s refusal to search this important email account, any production yielded from any search terms will necessarily be incomplete. Indeed, this failure is particularly prejudicial, as this account appears to be th e one she used while she was with Epstein, and therefore, the one she used during the time period Defendant was abusing Ms. Giuffre. Defendant does not appear to ha ve pursued access to this acc ount very far. This inaction lies in stark contrast to Ms. Giuffre ’s efforts to recover data. Ms. Giuffre has sent executed releases to Microsoft for her inaccessible ac count, and even issued a Rule 45 Subpoena to Microsoft for the producti on of her account data. See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 9, Microsoft Subpoena. At a minimum, the Court should direct th e Defendant to take these steps to access the earthlink.net email account. D. An Adverse Inference Instruction is Appropriate. In light of this clear and persistent pattern of recalcitrance, the Court should instruct the jury that it can draw an adverse inference that the Defendant has concealed relevant evidence. Defendant has yet to provide responsive information. And even if Defendant were, at this late date, to run Ms. Giuffre’s proposed search terms over her data (which has not yet been collected), such a production would be both untimel y and prejudicial. Fact discovery has closed. Numerous depositions have already been taken by Ms. Giuffre without the benefit of these documents. The window for authenticating the documents through depositions has shut. Expert reports are due at the end of the month, and Ms. Giuffre’s experts do not have the benefit of reviewing these documents. Late production of information robs Ms. Giuffre of any practical ability to use the discovery. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 2117 The Second Circuit has stated, “[w]here doc uments, witnesses, or information of any kind relevant issues in litigation is or was within the exclusive or primary control of a party and is not provided, an adverse inference can be dr awn against the withholding party. Such adverse inferences are appropriate as a conseque nce for failure to make discovery.” Bouzo v. Citibank , N.A., 1993 WL 525114, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant’s continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism – even following the Court’s June 20 order – makes an adverse inference instruction with regard to Defendant’s documents appropriate. An adverse inference instruction is appropriate when a party refuses to turn over documents in defiance of a Court Order. See Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A ., 2005 WL 1026461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005) (denying application to set aside Magistrate Judge Peck’s order entering an adverse inference in struction against defendant for failure to produce documents that the Judge Peck had ordered Defendant to produce). Accordingly, because a “party’s failure to produce evidence within its control creates a presumption that evidence would be unfavorable to that party” an adverse inference should be applied with respect to Defendant’s failure to produce “in order to ensure fair h earing for [the] other party seeking evidence.” Doe v. U.S. Civil Service Commission , 483 F. Supp. 539, 580 (S.D. N.Y., 1980) ( citing International Union v. NLRB , 148 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 312-317, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336-41 (D.C.Cir.1972)). “An adverse inference serves the remedial purpose of restoring the prejudiced party to the same position he would have been in absent th e wrongful destruction of [or willful refusal to produce] ev idence by the opposing party.” Chevron Corp. v. Donziger , 296 F.R.D. 168, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (granting an adverse inference when defendants refused to produce documents pursuant to the District Court’s order). Where “an adverse inference ... is sought on the basis that the evidence was not produced in time for use at trial, the party seeking the instruction must Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 2118 show (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to timely produce it; (2) that the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had ‘a culpable state of mind’; and (3) that the missing evidence is ‘relevant’ to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense.” Id. (citing Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp. , 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002)). Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 315), an adverse inference is appropriate regarding the documents that Defendant is withhol ding under the Second Circuit’s test set forth in Residential Funding . Defendant has admitted to deleting emails as this Court noted in its Order. Defendant has not collected what data remains from at least half of her email accounts. An adverse inference is equally appropriate if the non- compliance was due to Defendant’s des truction of evidence. See Brown v. Coleman , 2009 WL 2877602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009) (“Where a party violates a court order —either by destroying evidence when directed to preserve it or by failing to produce information because relevant data has been destroyed —Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may impose a range of sanctions, including dismissal or judgment by default, preclusion of evidence, impos ition of an adverse inference, or assessment of attorneys' fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp ., 306 F.3d 99, 106 –07 (2d Cir.2002)”). See also Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL 124505, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011); and Rule 37(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“If electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it . . . the court: (2) only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 2119 the party; (b) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismi ss the action or enter a default judgment.”). The Court may also wish to consider the possibility of a having a neutral, third-party expert review Defendant’s production. In her filing with the Court on Monday, August 1, 2016, Defendant represented that she ran hundreds of search terms - including the names of people involved in the sex trafficking ring with whom she still associates in the present - and got zero “hits” for any of them. That is strong indicia that Defendant intentionally deleted documents. This strongly suggests that relevant documents either lie in the two email accounts that were not searched or Defendant has deleted these comm unications. Defendant does not state that the individual who examined Defendant’s devices attempted to recover Defendant’s deleted email and other documents, or attempted to identify if and when a hard drive was wiped. In these circumstances, the Court should allow an independent forensic expert review the computer and all her email accounts to determine whether responsive materials exists and have either not been produced or have been delete d. The Court could then use that information in determining whether an adverse inference is appropriate. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Giuffre resp ectfully request that this Court grant her motion for an adverse inference jury instruction pu rsuant to Rule 27(b), (e), and (f), with respect to the electronic documents and electronic communications that this Court Ordered her to produce, allow a forensic review of her computer to evaluate whether material was intentionally deleted; and direct Defendant to recover any re maining mindspring.com data from the applicable server. Dated: August 8, 2016 -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 2120 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202 2 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 2121 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 8th day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10 th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email : lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-19 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 21 United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ____________________________/ DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION BASED ON NEW INFORMATION I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as follows: 1. I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to practice in Florida and befor e this Court pursuant to this Court’s September 29, 2015 Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. 2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of July 29, 2016, Correspondence from Ty Gee. 4. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from April 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 5. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from July 22, 2016, Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. 6. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 10, 2016, Deposition of Rinaldo Rizzo. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4 7. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 21, 2016, Deposition of Detective Joseph Recarey. 8. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from May 18, 2016, Deposition of Johanna Sjoberg. 9. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts from June 1, 2016, Deposition of Juan Alessi. 10. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the sworn testimony of Janusz Banasiak. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Rule 45 Subpoena to Microsoft. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley______________ Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4 3 Dated: August 8, 2016. Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202 1 1 This daytime business address is provided for id entification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 8th day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10 th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email : lmenninger@hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com / s / S i g r i d S . M c C a w l e y Sigrid S. McCawley Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 2 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 11Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xVIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Case No.: -against- 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendants.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x **CONFIDENTIAL** Videotaped deposition of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, taken pursuant to subpoena, was held at the law offices of BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, commencing April 22, 2016, 9:04 a.m., on the above date, before Leslie Fagin, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in the State of New York. - - - MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES 1200 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10026 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 11Page 57 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 asked and answered already.3 Q. You can answer the question.4 A. I have no idea what Sarah Kellen5 did.6 Q. You never observed Sarah Kellen7 with girls under the age of 18 at Jeffrey's8 home?9 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form 10 and foundation.11 A. The answer is no, I have no idea.12 Q. Do you know Glenn Dubin?13 A. I do.14 Q. What is your relationship with15 Glenn Dubin?16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form.17 A. What do you mean what is my18 relationship.19 Q. Are you friendly with him, how do20 you know him?21 A. He is the husband of Eva Dubin.22 Q. Is Eva Dubin one of your friends?23 A. Yes.24 Q. Did you ever send Virginia to25 Glenn's condo at the Breakers to give him a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 11Page 270 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 A. She helps with my not-for-profit3 ocean foundation and any other related4 activities that I may have.5 Q. Is she paid for by Jeffrey Epstein?6 A. No.7 Q. She is paid for by you?8 A. Yes.9 Q. When did you first meet 10 ? 11 A. I don't recollect exactly, sometime12 maybe 2002, 2003.13 Q. How did you meet her?14 A. I don't recollect exactly how we15 met.16 Q. Did Jeffrey introduce you to her?17 A. I don't recollect how we met.18 Q. Does she know Jeffrey Epstein?19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the20 form and foundation.21 A. Can you ask again, please?22 Q. Does know Jeffrey23 Epstein?24 A. What do you mean by know?25 Q. Has she met her him before? -- MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 11Page 271 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the3 form and foundation.4 A. I can't recollect a time when5 -- I've seen with Jeffrey but --6 Q. You are not sure --7 A. I know they know either other. I8 can't testify to a meeting between them.9 Q. Do you know where in New Jersey she 10 lives? 11 A. No12 Q. You don't know a city?13 A. No.14 Q. How long has she worked for you?15 A. Sometime 2002, 2003.16 Q. To the present?17 A. Yeah.18 Q. Why do you think that 19 might know Jeffrey?20 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the21 form and foundation.22 A. Because you know, I know Jeffrey.23 Q. Have you seen them together?24 A. I already testified I have not seen25 them together, to my recollection.- - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 11Page 272 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 Q. Is it your testimony that 3 knows Jeffrey Epstein through the work4 that she does for you?5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the6 form and foundation.7 A. I don't recollect, and I don't8 recollect how I met and I can't testify9 to what relationship is or is not with 10 Jeffrey. 11 Q. Have you ever talked to Jeffrey12 about ?13 A. I don't know what you mean.14 Q. In any way, have you ever had a15 conversation with Jeffrey about ?16 A. In what context.17 Q. In any context. Have you ever18 talked to Jeffrey Epstein about ?19 A. works for me so it's entirely20 possible that in the course of conversations21 since 2002, 2003 that a conversation in which22 name would have come up is entirely23 possible.24 Q. I provided you with and I'm sorry,25 I don't know all the numbers, but the-- -- - - - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11Page 273 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 statement that was issued by Ross Gow that3 should be a single page still in your stack4 of exhibits there.5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Exhibit 10.6 Q. Did you authorize Ross Gow to issue7 that statement on your behalf in January of8 2015?9 A. I already testified that that was 10 done by my lawyers.11 Q. So did you authorize your lawyers12 to issue a statement on your behalf through13 Ross Gow in January of 2015?14 A. It was determined that I had to15 make a statement in the United Kingdom16 because of the appalling lies and I just17 thought of some new ones.18 Virginia's statement that I19 celebrated her 16 birthday with her. We can20 all agree that that's entirely impossible. I21 didn't meet her until she was 17 and other22 lies she perpetrated that she had a diary and23 we all know is a complete fake. That's not a24 diary. It was just a book she was writing25 that you helped sell to the press, as if it MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 11Page 361 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 (Maxwell Exhibit 17, email, marked3 for identification.)4 Q. This is an email from you on5 January 10, 2015 to Philip Barden and Ross6 Gow. The statement you had before you7 earlier, that, if you can pull that in front8 of you, the one page press release that you9 gave. You might know from memory. 10 Was the press release that you11 issued with the statement about Virginia12 issued in or around January 2, 2015?13 A. As best as I can recollect.14 Q. I want to turn your attention to15 the document I just handed you which is Bates16 No. 001044, from you to Philip Barden and17 Ross Gow. It says in the first sentence, I'm18 out of my depth to understand defamation,19 other legal hazards and I don't want to end20 up in a lawsuit aimed at me from anyone, if I21 can help it. Apparently, even saying22 Virginia is a liar has hazards.23 You knew at the time you called24 Virginia a liar in early January of 2015 that25 that was something that would result in a MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 11Page 405 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 with Virginia Roberts.3 Q. I'm marking this as Maxwell 25.4 (Maxwell Exhibit 25, email, marked5 for identification.)6 Q. I'm showing you what has been7 marked as Maxwell 25.8 This is an email dated January 11,9 2015 at the top? 10 Do you see that that from Jeffrey11 to you?12 A. Uh-huh.13 Q. And then below there is an email14 from Philip Barden to you and cc'ing Ross Gow15 on January 11, 2015.16 Do you see that?17 A. Uh-huh.18 Q. It says, Dear Ghislaine, as you19 know I have been working behind the scenes20 and this article comes from that. It helps21 but doesn't answer the VR claims. I will get22 the criminal allegations out. This shows the23 MOS will print truth, not just a VR voice24 piece. We can only make the truth by making25 a statement. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 11Page 406 1 G Maxwell - Confidential 2 What did he mean when he said, I3 will get the criminal allegations out, what4 was he referring to?5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the6 form and foundation.7 A. I have no idea.8 Q. Were there criminal allegations9 about Virginia that either your lawyer or 10 press agent were leaking to the press?11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form12 and foundation.13 A. I have no idea.14 Q. Did you ask him what he meant when15 he said, I will get the criminal allegations16 out?17 A. I don't recollect the conversation.18 Q. Did you direct him to leak to the19 press criminal allegations about Virginia20 Roberts?21 A. I already testified that I have no22 knowledge of what you are asking me.23 Q. Were you copied on this email,24 correct?25 A. I was. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 11Page 416 1 2 CERTIFICATE345 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the witness,6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, was duly sworn by me and7 that the deposition is a true record of the8 testimony given by the witness.9 10 _______________________________ 11 Leslie Fagin, Registered Professional Reporter 12 Dated: April 22, 2016 131415 (The foregoing certification of16 this transcript does not apply to any17 reproduction of the same by any means, unless18 under the direct control and/or supervision19 of the certifying reporter.)202122232425 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-21 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT 5 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 5Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS------------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v.GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------x June 21, 2016 9:17 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOSEPH RECAREY, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 5Page 106 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 Q. Do you remember speaking with a female by3 the name of ?4 A. Yes.5 Q. And is that -- did you learn from 6 about ?7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and8 foundation.9 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 10 BY MR. EDWARDS:11 Q. And what did you understand 12 interaction with Jeffrey Epstein to be?13 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and14 foundation.15 THE WITNESS: was allegedly16 dating Jeffrey Epstein at the time. And 17 and were roommates.18 During that time, had met with 19 and went shopping with her at the Palm Beach20 Mall, where they purchased items from21 Victoria's Secrets.22 After spending the day together, they went23 over to the Palm Beach house, where Epstein24 requested to see what was purchased. She was a25 little reluctant initially, but because of the-- -- --- - MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 5Page 107 1 JOSEPH RECAREY - CONFIDENTIAL 2 fact that it was his money that purchased the3 items, she showed the outfit that she had4 purchased at Victoria's Secrets. He had asked5 her to try it on, at which time she did.6 She went back to the house at another7 time, where she was going to meet with 8 and Epstein. They went for a bike ride, but9 had a massage, which Epstein walked in on 10 while she was getting a massage.11 He asked her to turn over, expose her12 breasts to him. I think he performed a13 chiropractic move on her. And she was14 completely uncomfortable with the whole15 situation.16 BY MR. EDWARDS:17 Q. Did you ever attempt to interview 18 ?19 A. I'm trying to recall. I believe I may20 have. I just -- off the top of my head, I can't21 remember whether I did or didn't.22 Q. Okay. At some point in time did you23 encounter Alan Dershowitz?24 MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and25 foundation. -- -- MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 5Page 365 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF OATH4 STATE OF FLORIDA )5 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )67 I, the undersigned authority, certify8 that JOSEPH RECAREY personally appeared before me9 and was duly sworn. 10 WITNESS my hand and official seal this11 24th day of June, 2016.1213 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 14 Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. EE911443 15 Expires: 2/16/1616 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +171819202122232425 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-22 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT 6 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 4Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS------------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v.GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------x May 18, 2016 9:04 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHANNA SJOBERG, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4Page 45 1 Q. And what -- do you recall any observations 2 about when you met her?3 A. To speak with, she was a little rough4 around the edges, and I could see the progression of5 her being groomed a little. They got her braces.6 She had terrible posture. And with a lot of7 massages, she learned to stand up straight. So I8 just saw her become a much more confident person.9 Q. Do you recall how old she was when you 10 first met her? 11 A. I assumed she was 18, but I do not know12 her age.13 MS. McCAWLEY: We're going to take a break14 really quickly and then we will be back. So we15 are going to go off the record.16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 9:48.17 (Thereupon, a recess was taken, after18 which the following proceedings were held:)19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record at 9:58.20 BY MS. McCAWLEY:21 Q. I'm just going to resume. I have a few22 more questions for you.23 You mentioned visiting the US Virgin24 Islands.25 Do you recall doing any activities withJane Doe 2 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 4Page 159 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 STATE OF FLORIDA )3 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )45 I, the undersigned authority, certify6 that JOHANNA SJOBERG personally appeared before me7 and was duly sworn.8 WITNESS my hand and official seal this9 18th day of May, 2016. 10 11 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR 12 Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. FF911443 13 Expires: 2/16/21 14 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +1516171819202122232425 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-23 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 7 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CASE NO. 15-CV-07433-RWS------------------------------------------x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v.GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------x June 1, 2016 9:12 a.m. C O N F I D E N T I A L Deposition of JOHN ALESSI, pursuant to notice, taken by Plaintiff, at the offices of Boies Schiller & Flexner, 401 Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Kelli Ann Willis, a Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Florida. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 6Page 223 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 Q. You never received emails from either of3 them?4 A. No, sir.5 Q. So when there would be a message from one6 of them while they were out of town, they would call7 you, call you on the telephone?8 A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years.9 Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked 10 there and you would receive a message that they were11 coming into town, would that be by way of telephone?12 A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at13 the house, that it was MindSpring, MindSpring I14 think it's called, that it was like a message system15 that would come from the office.16 Q. What is MindSpring?17 A. It was a server. I think it was -- the18 office would have, like, a message system between19 him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They20 would write a message on the computer. There was no21 email at that time.22 Q. Okay. So what computer would you use?23 A. My computer in my office.24 Q. And so was part of your daily routine to25 go to your computer and check to see if you had MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 6Page 224 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 MindSpring messages?3 A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That4 was the very end of my stay. I didn't get involved5 with that too much. But it was a message system6 that Jeffrey received every two, three hours, with7 all the messages that would have to go to the office8 in New York, and they will print it and send it9 faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him. 10 Q. Did it look like the message pads that11 we've been looking at?12 A. No, no, nothing like that.13 Q. Was it typed-out messages?14 A. Yes, typed-out messages.15 Q. Just explain one example of how it would16 work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to send him a17 message on MindSpring. How would that work?18 A. An example?19 Q. Sure.20 A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my21 stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking to22 me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the23 office; the office would type it; they would send it24 to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey25 wants an orange juice out by the pool. MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 6Page 225 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 Q. He would call the office in New York.3 They would then type it in MindSpring?4 A. Send it to me.5 Q. How would you know to check for it? How6 would you know to look for this MindSpring?7 A. Because I was in the office. I was there.8 I was there. And we have a signal when it come on9 and says, Hey, you've got mail. 10 Q. Okay.11 A. Every day. Every day it was new things12 put in. That's why I left, too.13 Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring14 system?15 A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer16 guy who worked only for Jeffrey. Mark. Mark17 Lumber.18 Q. Was he local to Palm Beach?19 A. No. He was in New York. Everything was20 set up from New York. And Mark Lumber, I remember21 he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the22 house.23 Q. Did you become aware at some point in time24 that there was a bag or a briefcase of cash that was25 in the house? MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 6Page 236 1 JOHN ALESSI 2 CERTIFICATE OF OATH3 STATE OF FLORIDA )4 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )5 I, the undersigned authority, certify 6 that JOHN ALESSI personally appeared before me and was duly sworn. 7 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 1st day of June, 2016. 89 Kelli Ann Willis, RPR, CRR 10 Notary Public, State of Florida Commission FF928291, Expires 2-16-20 11 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +12 CERTIFICATE13 STATE OF FLORIDA )14 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )15 I, Kelli Ann Willis, Registered Professional Reporter and Certified Realtime 16 Reporter do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the 17 foregoing deposition of JOHN ALESSI; that a review of the transcript was not requested; and that the 18 transcript is a true record of my stenographic notes. 19 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any 20 of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected 21 with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 22 Dated this 1st day of June, 2016.2324 KELLI ANN WILLIS, RPR, CRR25 MAGNA9 LEGAL SERVICES Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-24 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT 8 (Filed Under Seal) Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO:502008CA028051XXXXMB AB L.M. Plaintiff, -vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND SARAH KELLEN, Defendants. ______________________________/ DEPOSITION OF JANUSZ BANASIAK Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:09 - 2:30 p.m. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Reported By: Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR Notary Public, State of Florida Prose Court Reporting Job No.: 1317 GIUFFRE004424Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 55 1 A. One was in cabana. One, the other second one 2 was in living room and one was in small office next to3 the kitchen.4 Q. All right. In your time at the house5 prior to that, is it fair to say those computers had6 never been removed before?7 A. I remember that there was to bring some new8 ones to replace them at some point. I don't know9 remember exactly if it was for upgrading, but they 10 change computers very often I would say.11 Q. All right. But the computers -- the12 removal by Adriana and this individual, that wasn't13 done -- we're talking about a different -- that's14 not a time where they were replacing computers.15 This was just removing computers from the house?16 A. Yes.17 Q. And did you receive any explanation as to18 why the computers were being removed from the house?19 A. No.20 Q. Did you ever have occasion to use any of21 the three computers that were removed from the22 house?23 A. No. I never, I never, you know, touch them,24 never use them. I have my own computer in my office, so25 I use this computer. GIUFFRE004478Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 56 1 Q. Is your computer in your office -- 2 A. Yes.3 Q. Let me finish. Is the computer in your4 office linked up with the three computers that were5 removed from the house? Meaning, can you look at6 the system and see what is on those three computers?7 A. No, no.8 Q. Is it your understanding that those three9 computers are linked with one another or do you 10 know?11 A. I don't know, but I, I doubt it. They are12 separate I guess.13 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein14 used a Citrix program to link various computers?15 Did you know that?16 A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for17 exchanging e-mails and get through Internet.18 Q. Okay. So, is it your understanding that19 the only connection then through Citrix with these20 computers, these various computers that were in21 Mr. Epstein's home, was for e-mail purposes?22 A. Yes.23 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, you're not24 familiar with those computers sharing other files or25 information? GIUFFRE004479Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 57 1 A. No. 2 Q. That's not something that you were, you3 were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the loop4 of the sharing of information in the house in terms5 of the computers being connected through any server?6 A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer7 your question because Citrix is for the whole8 organization to exchange e-mail between employees.9 Q. All right. You used the term? 10 A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix.11 I can receive mail and I can e-mail information to12 employee within organization. But I don't know if you13 can see to each computer what is going on on another14 computer.15 Q. You don't know about --16 A. Is that your question?17 Q. You don't know about shared files?18 A. No.19 Q. You only know that the one computer can20 e-mail the other?21 A. Right.22 Q. But that can happen with any two computers23 in the world pretty much. You can send e-mails to24 each other, right.25 A. Yes. GIUFFRE004480Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 58 1 Q. You have used the term organization, you 2 can share within the organization. What do you --3 just so I can understand what you're calling the4 organization, what do you mean by that word?5 A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are6 a few groups of people, his office in New York and I7 guess --8 Q. Who are those people by name that you9 would consider within the Jeffrey Epstein 10 organization?11 A. His accountant, his --12 Q. Who is that?13 A. Bella Klen.14 Q. What is it?15 A. Bella Klen. K-l-i-n. E-n, I'm sorry.16 Q. Bella, B-e-l-l-a?17 A. Yes.18 Q. Is that somebody in New York?19 A. Yes.20 Q. Is that a male or female?21 A. Female.22 Q. And you understand that's his accountant?23 A. Right.24 MR. GOLDBERGER: Just to get the spelling25 correct is it K-l-e-i-n? GIUFFRE004481Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 59 1 THE WITNESS: K-l-e-n. 2 MR. MERMELSTEIN: K-l-e-n.3 BY MR. EDWARDS:4 Q. And in addition to Bella Klen, who else5 would you have considered to be in Jeffrey Epstein's6 organization?7 A. Rich Kahn. Richard Kahn.8 Q. And how do you spell the last name?9 A. K-a-h-n. 10 Q. And where is he located?11 A. New York office.12 Q. What does he do?13 A. I guess he was involved with the accounting.14 Q. And who else?15 A. Leslie. I would think I would say secretary.16 Q. Leslie Groff?17 A. Yes.18 Q. And is she also in the New York office?19 A. Yes.20 Q. What do you understand her role to be?21 A. Secretary I would say.22 Q. Did she also schedule appointments for23 these young females to come to Jeffrey Epstein's24 house?25 MR. GOLDBERGER: Form. GIUFFRE004482Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 60 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 2 BY MR. EDWARDS:3 Q. We'll go back to that but I tell you why I4 ask. If you don't know then you don't know, but in5 the course of Mr. Epstein's -- you're aware that he6 did plead guilty to a couple felonies in state7 court, right?8 A. Right.9 Q. Well, in the course of the negotiation 10 with the federal government and the U.S. Attorney's11 Office, they, the agreement between Mr. Epstein and12 the U.S. Attorney's office mentions people that are13 called co-conspirators of Epstein. And Leslie Groff14 is named as one of those co-conspirators.15 Do you know what involvement, if any, that16 she had with the crimes that were being17 investigated?18 A. No.19 Q. Okay.20 A. I am not aware of this.21 Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as22 co-conspirators are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, and23 Nadia Marcinkova. So we'll get to them in a minute24 but first just so we stay on the track of who was in25 the organization, is Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross and GIUFFRE004483Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 61 1 Nadia Marcinkova all people that you would also 2 consider within the organization?3 A. Yes.4 Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names5 to it. Who else would you consider, Ghislaine6 Maxwell?7 A. Yes.8 Q. And who else?9 A. Who was working there? 10 Q. Bella, Richard Kahn, Leslie Groff,11 Ghislaine Maxwell, Nadia, Sarah, Adriana.12 A. I think Harry was involved with the13 accounting.14 Q. Okay.15 A. I don't recall his last name.16 Q. Somebody else involved with the17 accounting?18 A. Yes.19 Q. Okay. Any of those people that you just20 named, were any of those people that you just named21 the person that you described as the gentleman that22 assisted Adriana in removing the computers from the23 house prior to the search warrant being executed?24 A. No. You mean the one who show up to do those25 computers? GIUFFRE004484Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 62 1 Q. Right. The one who helped Adriana move 2 it.3 A. No, it wasn't.4 Q. Had you ever seen that individual on the5 property, on Mr. Epstein's property at 358 Albrillo6 Way prior to him assisting Adriana in removing the7 computers from the home?8 A. No.9 Q. That was their first time seeing him? 10 A. Yes.11 Q. Had you ever seen him since that date?12 A. No.13 Q. And to this date you don't know who that14 individual was?15 A. No.16 Q. Were you told that the -- let me rephrase17 that. I guess you told me that anything that18 happened in the home in terms of guests coming over19 or things of that nature, you would be forwarned20 about it, right?21 A. Right.22 Q. So, when was the first time that you23 learned that Adriana and some gentleman that you had24 never met would be coming to the home to remove the25 computers? GIUFFRE004485Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 63 1 A. I got the phone call from her that there would 2 be -- I don't know what time it was in the house in3 certain time and they would pick up those computers.4 Q. Okay. And you got a phone call from5 Adriana?6 A. Right.7 Q. Why were you called by Adriana to tell you8 that Adriana and would be coming over to, with some9 other gentleman to remove the computers. Do you 10 know why you were told that?11 A. No.12 Q. Would Adriana call every time she would13 come over?14 A. Yes.15 Q. Okay.16 A. I mean, any, any time coming to the house,17 they always let me know who is coming when they are18 arriving or whatever.19 Q. Back in 2000, sorry.20 A. I said even if Jeffrey Epstein arriving at the21 house, I always know what time and which day he would be22 here or another person, so I would be aware of what was23 going on and I would be prepared.24 Q. Who besides you back in 2005 lived at the25 house full time; just you? GIUFFRE004486Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 122d75a91d-3eaa-42b3-ae22-b5d3c7182d1e Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)Electronically signed by cynthia hopkins (601-051-976-2934)(561) 832-7500 PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506Page 191 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 THE STATE OF FLORIDA3 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH456 I, the undersigned authority, certify that7 JANUSZ BANASIAK personally appeared before me8 and was duly sworn on the 16th day of February,9 2010. 1011 Dated this 28th day of February, 2010.12131415 _________________________________ 16 Cynthia Hopkins, RPR, FPR 17 Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission Expires: February 25, 2011 18 My Commission No.: DD 643788 19202122232425 GIUFFRE004614Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-25 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 12UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS --------------------------------------------------X Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motio n to Enforce the Court’s Order a nd Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal ......................................... Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 27i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2 I. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS CLAIMED UNANSWERED REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE MOTION ............................................. 8 II. THE REQUESTED TOPIC AREAS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE AND NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PERMITTI NG ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION TIME ...... 10 III. COUNSEL INSTRUCTED MAXWELL NO T TO ANSWER TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AND TO PREVENT HARASSMENT BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL .............................................................................................................................. ...... 13 A. Objected to Question Number 1: ....................................................................................... 13 B. Objected to Questions Number 2 and 3. ............................................................................ 14 C. “Objected” to Question Number 4. .................................................................................... 15 D. “Objected” to Question Number 5 ..................................................................................... 15 E. “Objected” to Question Number 6 ..................................................................................... 15 F. Objected to Question Number 7 ........................................................................................ 16 G. Objection to Question Number 8 ....................................................................................... 17 H. Objections to Questions 9, 10, and 11. .............................................................................. 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................................. 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 271 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her counsel, hereby submits the following Response in Opposition (“Response”) to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal (“Motion”), as follows: INTRODUCTION This lawsuit presents one relatively simple question: is Plaintiff’s claim that she was sexually abused , sexually trafficked and held as a “sex slave” by Jeffrey Epstein between 1999 and 2002 “with the assistance and participati on of” Ms. Maxwell substantially true? Plaintiff already has admitted, under oath, that substantial portions of her story are untrue; she has so far refused to say under oath what other lies printed by the press about her story are untrue, but has admitted that journalist Sharon Churcher “got it wrong.” For example, Plaintiff has admitted that she did not meet Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein in 1999 (or in 1998) at the age of 14 or 15, as she previously has sworn and as she told members of the press. Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca “Pagliuca Decl.”), Composite Ex. A (Testimony of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre on May 3, 2016), at 26-27, 220-226. Plaintiff admitted th at she did not spend her sweet 16th birthday with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell as she included in he r book manuscript, her Jane Doe #102 Complaint and in the story she sold to the Daily Mail. Id. at 102. Plaintiff’s counsel has admitted that it was a mistake to sue Alan Dershowitz for de famation, after he provided them documentation establishing he never was in their client’s presence, nor did he have sex with her . Pagliuca Decl., Ex. B. And Plaintiff’s story about attending a dinner party with Bill Clinton on Little St. James was debunked by none other than former FBI head, Louis Freeh. Id. Yet, undeterred, Plaintiff and her counsel conti nue to use this lawsuit to seek discovery of matters far afield of the one simple question posed in the defamation claim, to explore events that occurred well past 2002, when Plaintiff li ved in Australia and had no contact with Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein. The current witch-hunt has now expanded into the private personal life Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 272 of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The harassing , extended, repetitive, cumulative and redundant continued deposition of Ms. Ma xwell should be concluded. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On April 22, 2016 Plaintiff deposed Ms. Maxwell for a full seven hours. The transcript of that deposition is 418 pages long. Ms. Maxwel l did not assert any privilege against self- incrimination and was questioned extensively about, among other things: her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, her knowledge of “sexual trafficking ,” sex with minors, non -consensual sex, sex involving the Plaintiff and others, sex involving Plaintiff and Mr. Epstein, sex involving the Plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell, sex involving the Plaintiff, Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. She was asked questions about whether she recruited gi rls for Ms. Epstein to have sex with, her knowledge of Ms. Epstein’s sex with a number of people. She was asked questions about “sex toys, ” pornographic images, child pornography, and nudity at Mr. Epstein’s house. Ms. Maxwell answered these questions, and many others, to the best of her ability. See Pagliuca Decl., Composite Exhibit C (Transcript of (First) De position of Ghislaine Maxwell on April 22, 2016). During her first deposition, Ms. Maxwell was freely questioned and testified about the following: x She never had a sexual encounter with Plaintiff, ever. Id. at 76:3-11. x She never saw Plaintiff massage Mr. Epstein. Id. at 75:12-24. x She never saw Jeffrey Epstein and Plaintiff in a sexual situation. Id. at 75:23- 76:l. x She did not have a set of outfits for Plaintiff to wear. Id. at 69:1-24, and again at 117:4- 15. x She had no knowledge of any non-consensual sex acts involving Mr. Epstein. Id. at 55:5- 15. x She never had non-consensual sex with anyone. Id. at 62:19-20 & 63:23-25. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 273xShe did not train Plaintiff to “recruit ”other girls for massages or sexual massages. Id.at 81:21- 82:7. xShe never arranged for or asked Plaintiff to have sex with anyone. Id. at 58:6-11. xShe never gave a massage with Plaintiff in the room with Mr. Epstein. Id. at 19:16-21. xShe never gave a massage to Mr. Epstein with a female that was under the age of 18 in the room. Id.at 22:11-14. xShe never observed Mr. Epstein having a massa ge given by an individual, a female, who was under the age of 18. Id.at 22:15-18. xShe never had sex with . Id. at 38:19-23. xShe never observed Jeffrey Epstein having sex with Id.at 38:24- 39:2. xShe was unaware if Jeffrey Epstein was having sexual contact with when she was 13 years old. Id.at 39:3-5. xShe was never involved in an orgy with . Id.at 40:16-18. xShe had no knowledge of whether was involved with sex with Jeffrey Epstein and girls over the age of 18. Id.at 46:13-16. xShe had no knowledge of whether recruited other girls for sex with Jeffrey Epstein. Id.at 46:17-21. xShe did not know the precise nature of Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship wi th Sara Kellen. Id. at 48:5-6. xShe was unaware of any sexual acts with masseuses and Jeffrey Epstein that were non- consensual. Id.at 55:5-15. xShe discussed her knowl edge of Annie Farmer. Id. at 55:17- 56:20. xShe had no knowledge of Annie Farmer telling the police that Jeffrey Epstein sexually assaulted her. Id.at 56:16-20. xShe had no knowledge of Emmy Taylor having sex with Jeffrey Epstein. Id. at 65:10-15. xShe never had sex with Jeffrey Epstein, Plaintiff, and Emmy Taylor. Id.at 65:8-10. xShe had no knowledge of Emmy Taylor bringing females to the house to massage Jeffrey Epstein. Id.at 67:5-13. xShe had no knowledge about a basket of sex toys. Id.at 70:25- 75:4 and again at 242:3- 243:13.Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 274xShe was unaware of Jeffrey Epstein ever having his nipples pinched while having sex with a minor. Id.at 82:23-83:4. xShe never met anyone underage in London to provide a massage for Jeffrey Epstein. Id. at 97:25-98:5. xShe had no knowledge about Jean Luc Brunel bringing girls to Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of providing massages. Id.at 99:2-21. xShe never participated in obtaining visas for foreign girls. Id.at 100:9. xShe did not believe it was Jeffrey Epstein’s preference to start sex with a massage. Id.at 100:10-20. xShe never trained a female under the age of 18 at Jeff rey Epstein’s home. Id. at 157:5-10. xShe has no knowledge whether ever asked females to come over to see Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of sexual massage. Id.at 268:21-24. xShe had no knowledge of any sexual relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Anouska DiGeorgio. Id.at 305:5-23. xShe was aware of and understood that s he was Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend and spent a lot of time with him in 1999-2000. Id. at 364:5-365:11. Because Ms. Maxwell had not, by virtue of becoming a defendant in this case, injected her entire personal sexual history into this liti gation counsel for Ms. Maxwell, during the first 7 hour deposition, instructed Ms. Maxwell to not answ er questions related to consensual sexual activity with adults. No objection was raised, and no instruction to not answer lodged, to questions regarding Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity (consensual or non -consensual) by Mr. Epstein or others with children, Plainti ff, or other persons. No objections were made, or instructions to not answer, to questions about whet her Ms. Maxwell assisted Mr. Epstein in the alleged sexual trafficking of the Plaintiff f rom 1999 to 2002. Ms. Maxwell answered questions about sexual trafficking, prostitution, her job with Mr. Epstein, and police reports related to Mr. Epstein. Ms. Maxwell was questioned, without any instruction not to answer, about message pads, phone lists, the hiring practices related to massages, hiring practices in general, whether Jeffrey Epstein had a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and whether Jeffrey Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 275 Epstein’s assistants would arrange times for underage girls to perform sexual massages . Pagliuca Decl ., Ex. C at 253-55. She was extensively questioned about various message pads recovered from Jeffrey Epstein’s home by the Palm Beach Police Department. Id. at 147:23- 167:23. She was extensively questioned rega rding her knowledge about Johanna Sjoberg. Id. at 307:6-312:12. She was extensively questioned about a list containing names and phone numbers under the heading “Massage Florida. ” Id. at 313:18 – 334:8. Simply stated, with the exception of her adult consensual sex life, Plaintiff was free to question Ms. Maxwell, and in fact questioned Ms. Maxwell on any topic. Importantly, Plaintiff’s original motion recognized this fact, seeking only to response Plaintiff on one subject: “ Defendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer questions rega rding her knowledge of alleged “adult” sexual activity.” Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposit ion Questions, WHEREFORE Clause, at 10 (Doc. # 143). On June 20, 2016 the Court issued its Order al lowing Ms. Maxwell to be re-deposed on a limited basis. The Court authorized questioning relating to: 1. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity with or involving Jeffrey Epstein; 2. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity with or involving the Plaintiff; 3. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity with or involving underage females; 4. Ms. Maxwell’s sexual activity involving or including massage with individuals Ms. Maxwell knew were or were li kely involved with Mr. Epstein; 5. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activities of others with or involving Epstein; 6. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activ ities of others with or involving Plaintiff; 7. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity of others with underage females known to Epstein or believed to be known to Epstein; 8. Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity of others involving massage with individuals Ms. Maxwell knew or believed might be known to Epstein. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 276 The continued deposition was expressly limite d to the above eight categories, and the Court instructed that Ms. Maxwell “need not an swer questions that relate to none of these subjects or that is clearly not relevant, such as sexual activity of third-parties who bear no knowledge or relation to ke y events, individuals, or locations of this case.” Order of June 20, 2016 at 10 (Doc. # 264-1). Presumably the Court di d not authorize repetitive questioning about topics that had been asked and answered in the prior deposition. Ms. Maxwell had already been subjected t o, and fully answered, questions related the majority of the 8 topics in her first 7-hour deposition. Questions related to topics 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 had all been answered in the negative, i.e., Ms. Maxwell did not have any sexual contact with the Plaintiff (2), did not have sexual contact with any underage females (3), did not have any sexual contact with anyone during a massage (4); had no knowledge of Epstein’s sexual activity ot her than with Ms. Maxwell (5); had no knowledge of sexu al activity with others and the Plaintiff (6); and Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of sexual activity of others with minors. Topic s 4 and 8 had been substantially answered, in the negative. The instruction not to not to answer questions about sexual activity and massa ges was limited to any activity involving consensual adults. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Questions at 10 (Doc. #143). Given that the majority of the questions had already been posed and answered over a full seven-hour time period one might reasonably assume that Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition would be short and direct. Unfortunately, Plainti ff’s counsel chose to ignore the Court’s Order, repeatedly sought to reopen previously completed deposition topics and tried to ask questions about new topics completely unrelated to the limit ed purpose authorized. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D (Transcript of (Second) Deposition of Ghisla ine Maxwell on July 22, 2016). The entire deposition was far beyond the specific request made by Plaintiff in her Motion that Ms. Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 277 be required to answer questions about adult consensual sexual activity – the only questions on which instructions were given in the first deposit ion. Yet, broad latitude was given by counsel in the deposition, permitting pages of duplicative, redundant examination on countless topics which had already been asked and fully answer in the first disposition. By way of example: Duplicative Topic of Questioning First Deposition (Exhibit C) Second Deposition (Exhibit D) Circumstances surrounding her first meeting of Plaintiff and if she held herself out as a professional masseur 14:9-19:18 35:11 -36:20 213:5 -220:3 65:4-70:5 If she saw women under the age of 18 (first deposition) or 21 (second deposition) at Epstein’s houses 12:22 -14:8; 22:15 -24:9; 99:2-100:4; 122:19 -122:14 71:20 -73:18 Her knowledge of Ms. Sjoberg, her job, how she was hired, and if Ms. Maxwell ever received massages from Ms. Sjoberg 59:7-63:16; 286:23 -293:13; 307:6 -312:12 74:2-78:191 Knowledge of or meetings with Maria or Annie Farmer 55:20 -56:20; 62:21 -25 95:14 -98:10; 103:19 -113:22 Her knowledge of Nadia Marcinkova and interactions with Mr. Epstein 40:19 -47:14 120:22 -122:5; 126:22 -129:12 1 Consistent with Ms. Maxwell’s testimony, Ms. Sjoberg testified that 1) all massages she gave to Ms. Maxwell were ordinary professional massages, and never of a sexual nature; 2) Ms. Maxwell and she never engaged in any sexual ac tivity, nor was it ever requested; and 3) all interactions she had at Mr. Epstei n’s property of a sexual nature were consensual activities while she was an adult. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. E, at 94-96; 101; see generally Response at 20-21, infra . - - - -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 278 Duplicative Topic of Questioning First Deposition (Exhibit C) Second Deposition (Exhibit D) Her knowledge of Sara Kell en, when she last spoke to Ms. Kell en, what Ms. Kelle n’s job was , and her knowledge of sexual relations between Ms. Kell en and Mr. Epstein 47:15 -49:18; 56:21 -57:11; 254:25 -256:8; 328:21 -329:6; 396:4 -21; 411:14 -412:22 117:14 -118:9; 125:2 -126:21 Her interactions with Alfredo Rodriguez 329:7 -330:12; 331:9 -335:10 129:15 -132:6 Her knowledge concerning Jean Luc Brunel’s sexual activities or interaction with Mr. Epstein 379:22 -380:18; 99:14 -21; 116:19 -117:3; 166:21 -167:23 150:6 -17 Her knowledge of the identities of a list name titled “Massage – Florida” from an address book marked in the first deposition and discussed at length 312:15 -334:8 179:16 -184:15 THE QUESTIONS I. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS CLAIMED UNANSWERED REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE MOTION Plaintiff broadly, and inaccurately, claims now that at her second deposition, Ms. Maxwell “refused to answer many questions” related to sexual activity or “refused to answer questions about subject integral to this lawsuit. ” Motion at 3-4. This assertion is patently dispelled by a review of the second deposition transcript which is 193 pages long. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D. The deposition began at 9:04 a.m. and concluded at 2:51 p.m. The total time Ms. Maxwell testified in this deposition was 4 hours and 52 minutes for a total combined deposition - • Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 279 time of 11 hours and 52 minutes. A total of 787 que stions were posed to Ms. Maxwell in the second deposition. Ms. Maxwell answered every que stion posed to her that fell within the scope of the June 20 Order, many that were outside th e scope, and countless questions that had been asked and answered in her first deposition. It is difficult to discern precisely what questions Plaintiff is complaining about in her Motion because of her generalized and non-specific complaints. Plaintiff fails to cite to a single instruction not to answer that 1) falls within the scope to the Court’s O rder and 2) that was not answered when properly rephrased to fall within the scope of the Order. S.D.N.Y. Local Rules require that: A party seeking or opposing relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 inclusive, or making or opposing any other motion or application, shall quote or attach only those po rtions of the depositions , interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, or other discovery or disclosure materials, together with the responses and objections thereto, that are the subject of the discovery motion or application , or that are cited in papers submitted in connection with any other motion or application. See also Civil Local Rule 37.1. The failure to comply with Rule 37.1 and set forth the particular questions or responses Plaintiff claims are deficient is “enough to require denial of the motion.” Sibley v. Choice Hotels Int'l, No. CV 14-634 (JS) (AYS), 2015 WL 9413101, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2015) (denying motion to compel where party failed to identify the specific questions and responses to interrogatories claimed deficient); see also Kilkenny v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP , No. 05 CIV. 6578NRB, 2008 WL 371808, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2008) (denying motion to compel where specific questions and objection were not prov ided, noting rule 37.1 is “ This is not an academic or ritual requirement. . . . Court cannot be tasked with performing the functions of Kilkenny's legal counsel [by identifying claimed deficiencies] and thereby seen as advocating for one party over another. ”; Frattalone v. Markowitz, No. 91 CIV. 5854 (LMM), 1994 WL 494878, at *3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 2710 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1994) (permitting reopening of deposition only if party could specifically identify areas of inquiry previously foreclosed). To the extent Plaintiff has not identified specific questions that Ms. Maxwell was instructed not to answer she has waived any issue related to the questioning. II. THE REQUESTED TOPIC AREAS ARE CUMULATIVE, DUPLICATIVE AND NO GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PERMITTING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION TIME Plaintiff’s proffered “topic areas” that she would like to re -open the deposition to cover – again – makes clear that what she is asking for is additional time – in excess of the almost 12 hours she has already had – to ask questions that have already been answered. This is impermissible under Rule 30(d)(1) which prohibits depositions in excess of 7 hours seeking the type of duplicative and cumulative testimony Plaintiff seeks. The only testimony cited in the Motion are in stances in which Ms. Maxwell had already fully testified on the topic area. First, she cites questions concerning Johanna Sjoberg, a witness who has been deposed in this case. What Plaintiff ignores is that Ms. Maxwell had already been fully examined concerning her knowledge about Ms. Sjoberg and answered every question, with the exception of a single questions regarding adult consensual sexual activity which was answered in the second deposition. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 59:7-63:16; 286:23-293:13; 307:6-312:12 & Ex. D at 77:24 – 78:6 ( “Q. Di d Mr. Epstein, insofar as you believe, engage in sexual activities with Johanna? A. I would not know. I would say no. Q. Did you engage in sexual activities with Johanna? A. No.”). Despite this, leeway was given, and 5 pages of repeated testimony concerning Ms. Sjoberg co mmenced and was permitted until the duplicative nature of the testimony was simply too much. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 74:2-78:19. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 2711 Second, Plaintiff inaccurately complains that Ms. Maxwell refused to answer questions concerning sexual activity involving two women named Annie and Maria Farmer. Motion at 6. Not so. Ms. Maxwell answered questions for fully 13 pages of her deposition concerning the Farmers. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 95-98 and 103-113. Ms. Maxwell answered well over 76 questions relating to Annie and Maria Farmer including who they are, when she met them, whether she ever saw them at Epstein’s homes or her own home, whether Epstein ever had sex with them, whether they worked for Epstein, whether they flew on planes together, gave or received massages, participated in any sexual activities with one another, where they lived, the description of their living environments, and wh ether journalist Vicky Ward ever told Ms. Maxwell that Epstein had engaged in sexual activities. Id. This was on top of the questions that Ms. Maxwell had already answered at her first deposition that were nearly identical: who are the Farmers, how did you meet them, whether they ever made any allegations of sexual abuse by Epstein, or whether Ms. Maxwell had ever had non-consensual sexual contact with Annie Farmer. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 95:14 -98:10 & 103:19-113:22. In fact, at the first deposition, Ms. Maxwell did not refuse to answer a single question regarding the Farmers. Thus, all of the questions at the second deposition were redundant, cumulative and outside of the Court’s Order. The only question that Ms. Maxwell refused to answer was: “What did Vicky Ward tell you about Maria Farmer when she talke d to you?,” after which she answered another 10 pages of questions that centered around whether Vicky Ward had said specific things regarding the Farmers. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 103-113. Ms. Maxwell has already flatly denied she had any knowledge of the allegations posited by reporter Vicky Ward. Plaintiff is not permitted to re-depose Ms. Maxwell on issues already covered, or which she had the opportunity to cover, in the first 7-hour deposition, particularly in light of the - -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 2712 additional 4.5 hours permitted in the second deposi tion and the fact that she answered in the second deposition the only pertinent quest ions permitted by the Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) ( “the court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent”) (emphasis added). Rule 30(d)(1) requires a court to guard against redundant or disproportionate discovery, stati ng that any additional deposition time must be consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), prohi biting, among other things, cumulative and duplicative testimony. The duplicative nature of the “topics” requested by Plaintiff is demonstrated by the previously cited testimony. It is compounded by the fact that Ms. Sjoberg has fully testified concerning how she came to work for Epstein, what she did while working for him, and how she was paid. See This Response at 20-21, infra. The redundancy of the requested testimony (much of which is outside the scope of the Order) prohibits a finding of good cause for reopening – yet again – Ms. Maxwell’s testimony. See Kleppinger v. Texas Dep't of Transp. , 283 F.R.D. 330, 333 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (“a party seeking a court order to extend the duration of the examination must show ‘good cause’ to justify such an order” including showing information is not duplicative and cumulative). Of course, Ms. Maxwell and her counsel had no desire to subject Ms. Maxwell to a third deposition, thus permitting many questions that far exceeded the scope of the Order. When called on to explain how extraneous questions were proper , Plaintiff’s counsel r efused to proffer why certain questions were within the Court’s order leaving Ms. Maxwell’s counsel no option, on a few occasions, to instruct Ms. Maxwell to not answer. Plaintiff’s counsel’s refusal to simply explain how objectionable questions were within the scope of the permitted deposition makes clear that they were not, and should act as a waiver . See, e.g., Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 99-101. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 2713 III. COUNSEL INSTRUCTED MAXWELL NOT TO ANSWER TO ENFORCE THE COURT’S ORDER AN D TO PREVENT HARASSMENT BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL The only questions to which counsel for Ms. Maxwell instructed her not to answer were those that she had already answered or were outside the Court’s Order permitting a re -opening of the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (instruction not to an swer appropriate “when necessary to … enforce a limitation ordered by the court”). Plaintiff loosely points to eleven questions in her Motion. She omits parts in which the question had already been answered, and she implies an instruction not to answer where none was given. None of the cited questions merits the re- opening of Ms. Maxwell’s deposition for a third bite at the apple. A. Objected to Question Number 1: “So how did it happen, Ms. Maxwell, that Joanna, who had been hired to answer phones, ended up giving massages to you and Mr. Epstein.” In Ms. Maxwell’s first, 7 hour, deposition she was questioned extensively about her relationship with Ms. Sjoberg. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112-113; & 307-309. Consistent with the Defendant’s positi on at that time, Plaintiff was free to ask, and asked, questions about Ms.Sjoberg with the exception of consensual adult sexual contact. The only instruction to not answer was limited to consen sual adult sexual contact, of which there was none. (Although in fact, Ms. Maxwell testified in her first deposition that the massages with Ms. Sjoberg did not involve sex.). See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 61:14-15.. In Ms. Maxwell’s second, 4.5 hour deposition, she was again questioned extensively about Ms. Sjoberg. The questioning begins on page 74 of the transcript. Plaintiff’s counsel asked dozens of questions about Ms. Sjoberg without any instruction to not answer. When the questions became repetitive to the questions asked at the first deposition and strayed outside the Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 2714 Court’s Order counsel for Ms. Maxwell sought guidance form the Court, which was not available. Notwithstanding that the examination was repetitive, Ms. Maxwell responded to questions, without instruction not to answer, that were within the Cour t’s Order. She testified that she did not have any sexual relationship or contact with Ms. Sjoberg and was unaware of any sexual contact between Mr. Epstein and Ms. Sjoberg. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. D at 77:24- 78:6. She also testified about Ms. Sjoberg and massages, both in her first deposition and the second. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112- 113; & 307-309 and Ex. D at 74-82:8. When the question about Ms. Sjoberg answering phones for was asked for the fourth time, the instruction not to answer was given. These questions had been asked in the first deposition, could have been asked in greater detail in the first deposition, and were answered in both depositions prior to the instruction not to answer being given: Ms. Sjoberg was hired to answer phones and sometime after that went to massage school and began giving massages. Ms. Maxwell was not sure how the transition occurred but believed “that she went to massage school and became a professional masseuse.” Id., at 75:10-11. B. Objected to Questions Number 2 and 3. “Did Mr. Epstein pay Johanna for the massages that she gave Mr. Epstein?” “Do you know how much Mr. Epstein paid Johanna to give massages?” Plaintiff has selectively and misleadingly provided only a portion of the transcript related to this issue and ignores the fact that Plaintiff, in the first deposition, asked questions on the same topic. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell previously testified that she did not pay Ms. Sjoberg and did not know who paid her. See Pagliuca Decl. Ex. C at 59-63; 112 -113; & 307-309 and Ex. D at 82:2- 7. - I Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 2715 C. “Objected” to Question Number 4. “Do you know if Maria Farmer was ever at Mr. Wexner’s property in Ohio?” This question is completel y outside the Court’s June 20, 2016 Order as it does not relate to Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein, massages, sex, or any property identified in this case. Regardless, the witness was never instructed to not answer the question and did not refuse to answer questions about the Farmers. After the question was posed, counsel for Ms. Maxwell simply asked for an explanation as to how the question was within the Court’s Order. The witness was not instructed not to answer. It appears that after considering the request for a proffer as to how the question was within the Court’s Order , the question was withdrawn and a different question was posed: “ Mr. Boies: Let me approach it this way.” … Did Ms. Ward tell you that? ” The questioning about the Farmers co ntinues many pages thereafter. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D at 99- 113. D. “Objected” to Question Number 5 Without any record support Plaintiff claims that “Defendant’s counsel also stopped a line of questioning in which defendant was asked if she recalled several girls Tony Figueroa brought over to give a ‘massage’ to Epstein.” Plaintiff cites no specific instruction not to answer because one was never given. Ms. Maxwell answered questions about Mr. Figueroa and was questioned extensively regarding lists of names, about whic h Ms. Maxwell had no knowledge. Plaintiff was not forced to “cease questioning” about any person. The questioning occu rred and Ms. Maxwell responded. E. “Objected” to Question Number 6 “Was there a list that was kept of women or girls who provided mas sages?” The “list” was introduced as Exhibit 13 to Ms. Maxwell’s first deposition. Ms. Maxwell was questioned extensively about the “list” and testi fied, without objection about the list. In her - -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 2716 second deposition, the same Exhibit 13 was introduced and Ms. Maxwell was asked, without objection, questions relating to specific names on Exhibit 13. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 312- 334 and Ex. D at 179- 89. Exhibit 13 was a document prepared by so meone other than Ms. Maxwell, was not maintained by Ms. Maxwell and over which Ms. Maxwell had no control. Given the extensive testimony on the subject in both depositions, it was appropriate to instruct the witness to not answer the question. This debate, however is unnecessary because the question was asked again in a slightly dif ferent form and answered: Q: “ Did you, or insofar as you are aware anyone, maintain a list of females that provided massage services to Mr. Epstein at his residences?” A: “I don’t know anything about a list.” Id., Ex. D at 185:13-20. No follow up questions were asked after this answer. F. Objected to Question Number 7 “In 2005, were you aware of any effort to destroy records of messages you had taken of women who had called Mr. Epstein in the prior period?” Ms. Maxwell was previously deposed about documents purportedly seized when Mr. Epstein’s house was searched by the Palm Beach Pol ice Department. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. C at 312-19. The Court’s June 20, Order did not reopen the deposition to allow for baseless questions about the destruction of evidence in 2005. Alleged destruction of records has nothing to do with any of the 8 areas that the Court addressed. Accordingly, the objection is well founded. Plaintiff’s tortured explanation about how the question fits into the Court’s O rder is nonsense. -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 2717 G. Objection to Question Number 8 “In terms of preparing for this deposition, what documents did you review?” Ms. Maxwell was instructed to not answer the question as it related to privileged communications between Ms. Maxwell and counsel. Ms. Maxwell was asked if any of the documents refreshed her recollection about any of the events that occurred. Her response was: “No.” A follow up question was asked as to whether counsel provided Ms. Maxwell with any documents and th e answer was “One, I believe.” The communication between Ms. Maxwell and counsel was privileged, did not refresh her recollection, and the question was properly objected to. H. Objections to Questions 9, 10, and 11. “Now have you ever engaged in oral sex?” “Did you ever have oral sex with anyone in any of Mr. Epstein’s five homes that you’ve identified other than Mr. Epstein?” “Did you, in the 1990s and 2000s, engage in sexual activities other than intercourse with women other than wh at you have testified already?” All of the se questions were prohibited by the Court’ s Order because they were related to unidentified “third -parties who bear no knowledge or relation to the key events, individuals, or locations of this case.” The question “Now have you ever engaged in oral sex?” i s not tied to any person place, event or time. It is clearly out of bounds. Ms. Maxwell did, in fact, answer the question about oral sex with individuals other than Mr. Epstein when the locations were specified , i.e, planes; New York; Palm Beach; New Mexico; Paris; and the Virgin Islands. See Pagliuca Decl., Ex. D, Excerpts from July22, 2016 Maxwell Deposition pp. 21- 23. (The answer was “no”.) . Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 2718 The question: “Did you, in the 1990s and 2000s, engage in sexual activities other than intercourse with women other than what you have testi fied already?” i s also prohibited by the Court’s Order as it is not tied to a person, location, or key e vent associated with this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileg ed, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party ….” Although the scope of discovery is delibera tely broad, a Court is not "required to permit plaintiff to engage in a `fishing expedition' in the hope of supporting his claim." McGee v. Hayes , 43 Fed.Appx. 214, 217 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion); see also Tottenham v. Trans World Gaming C orp., 2002 WL 1967023, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.2002) ("Discovery, however, is not intended to be a fishing expedition, but rather is meant to allow the parties to flesh out allegations for which they init ially have at least a modicum of objective support") (quotations omitted); Hardrick v. Legal Services Corp ., 96 F.R.D. 617, 618 (D.D.C.1983) (courts should, remain concerned about "fishing expeditions, discovery abuse and inordinate expense involved in overbroad and far-ranging discovery requests .") (quotation omitted). "[B]road discovery is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of both plaintiff and defendant." Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp ., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted). Although relevance in discovery is broader than that required for admissibility at trial, "the object of inquiry must have some evidentiary value before an order to compel disclosure of otherwise inadmissible material will issue." Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Exzec, Inc ., No. 93 C 041, 1998 WL 9181, at *2 (N.D.I11.1998) (quoting Piacenti v. Gen. Motors Corp ., 173 F.R.D. 221, 223 (N.D.I11.1997)). Courts have also recognized that "[t]he legal tenet that relevancy in Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 2719 the discovery context is broader than in the c ontext of admissibility should not be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery." Id. (quotation omitted). Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure any party may move the court, for good cause shown, for a protective order regar ding pretrial discovery “which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be impli cated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.” Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart , 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). It is important to consider, again, that Ms. Maxwell is the defendant in this action. She has not put her private affairs at issue. She simply denied that she assisted Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual trafficking of the Plaintiff. It is also important to recognize that Ms. Maxwell is not Mr. Epstein and Mr. Epstein’s alleged conduct after Plain tiff left the country is not an issue in this defamation case. The Plaintiff has no personal know ledge of any of Mr. Epstein’s activities after 2002. Accordingly, any statements by Plaintiff ab out Mr. Epstein’s activities occurring after 2002 are her opinions, not facts that are subject to any defamation claim. I. THE PURPORTED “FACTUAL BACKGROUND” CITED BY PLAINTIFF IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE OR THIS MOTION As Carl Sandburg famously said, “ If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” In this case, rather than pound the table, Plaintiff tries to distract from the issues at hand – whether Ms. Maxwell fully answered all questions posed – by pointing to selective misleading quotes from various other witnesse s who have been deposed in this case. When viewed in their entirety, those witnesses neither support Plaintiff’s single claim for defamation nor her claim for Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 2720 relief in this Motion. In direct contradiction to Plaintiff’s fabricated story, the witnesses actually testified as follows: Johanna Sjoberg worked as a masseuse for Jeffrey Epstein for 5 years from 2001-2006, while she was aged 21- 26, including 1 ½ years that Plaintiff claims she was his “sex slave”. As to that experience, Ms. Sjoberg testified: x She never saw underage girls with Jeffrey Epstein or Ms. Maxwell and was “surprised” by the allegations of underage girls. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. E at 102. She never witnessed anyone underage in the presence of Epstein and Maxwell. Id. at 29. She only witnessed masseuses who were her age or older and they wore “normal” clothes . Id. at 31-32. x She never was asked by Epstein or Maxwell to give sexual massages to any of their friends or any famous people and the massages she gave Epstein’s friends were purely non-sexual. Id. at 112-116. x She never gave any type of sexual massage s to Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell never asked her to get naked during a massage, never asked for any sexual contact with her, and she remained appropriately draped during any massages. Ms. Maxwell was never present when she gave massages to Mr. Epstein. Id. at 95-97. x Plaintiff appeared to Ms. Sjoberg to be some type of assistant who possibly also gave massages to Epstein. Id. at 19. She never seemed traumatized, she never reported to her any inappropriate requests or contact by Eps tein or Maxwell, never said she had been sexually trafficked, she freely came and went. Id. at 113-16. In the only massage by Plaintiff of Epstein that Ms. Sjoberg observed, Plaintiff was fully clothed, on a beach, and it was non-sexual. Id. at 27. Ms. Sjoberg never saw Plaintiff in the presence of any famous people, apart from Prince Andrew and she did not observe anyone asking Plaintiff to do anything sexual, nor did Plainti ff report to her that anything sexual had occurred, even though Ms. Sjoberg inquired. Id. at 85, 87, 113 & 120. Plaintiff disappeared from the Epstein home about June 2001 when attempts to contact her led to a seemingly drugged-out boyfriend who could not explain her whereabouts. Id. at 92. x Despite hundreds of times in the Epstein home, Ms. Sjoberg only saw a few photos of adult women in topless poses in the bathroom of Epstein, there was no child pornography in the homes, and she does not recall any naked photos of Plaintiff. Id. at 25, 29, 42, 103- 106. x Ms. Sjoberg observed no orgies or sexual contact occur in the open at Epstein’s homes or on his planes. Id. at 94, 102. Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 2721 x Ms. Maxwell asked her if she knew any frie nds who might be interested in being masseuses, but the one she brought was an adult; Ms. Maxwell never asked for “underage” participants. Id. at 141, 152-53. x Whatever sexual contact occurred between Ms. Sjoberg and Mr. Epstein was between “consenting adults, ” as she told the police in 2006, and she only was “expected” to have sexual intercourse in 2005, after she had worked for him for 4 years. Id. at 101, 147. x Ms. Sjoberg respects Ms. Maxwell and is impressed by her talents. Id. at 55, 94-95, 97- 98, 147 She have a lot of fun the last time they hung out in 2006. Id. at 98. Joe Recarey , the lead investigator of Jeffrey Epstein from the Palm Beach County Police Department, testified at his deposition, th at (in contrast to Plaintiff’s claims): x He and other investigators interviewed app roximately 30-33 females in connection with the case and identified approximately 17 v ictims. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. F at 179, 334. x Ms. Maxwell was never a suspect in their investigation, was not a target of the grand jury investigation, nothing of Ms. Maxwell’s was seized from the home during execu tion of the search warrant, and Ms. Maxwell was never observed at the Epstein home during the police surveillance. Id. at 177, 211-12,214-16, 257. x None of the victims identified Ms. Maxwell as having “recruited” them to come give massages to Epstein. Id. at 180-82, 191-93, 195. x None identified Ms. Maxwell as even being at the house when they were there, or paying them, or instructing them on what to wear or how to act, or ever of having spoken to them. Id. x None were ever sexually trafficked to other men; Jeffrey Epstein was the only person with whom they had any sexual contact. Id. at 300-301. x None were ever asked to spend the night with Epstein, or travel with them. Id. x He did not observe any child pornography or any photos of naked women in the home when he went to help install cameras to catch a thief in Mr . Epstein’s home in 2002 (who turned out to be butler Juan Alessi). Id. at 288-90. Juan Alessi . He served as the butler for approximately 10 year period at Mr. Epstein’s home in Palm Beach. He testified that: Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 2722 x The majority of masseuses that came to the house were over the age of 20. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. G at 200. x Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell found the massage therapists from the high-end spas nearby, including the Breakers, Boca Raton and Mar-a-Lago, as Mr. Alessi confirmed when he called them at their jobs to arrange home visits. Id. at 187-88. x The massage therapists were paid by check. Id. at 166. x Plaintiff was working at one of these spas when she was hired, wearing an old- fashio ned nurse’s type uniform. Id. at 174. x Contrary to Plaintiff’s main story, she did not go upstairs with Mr. Epstein the first time she came over and he did not drive her home. Id. at 192. Tony Figueroa – Plaintiff’s live -in boyfriend during the time that she worked for Mr. Epstein, testified that: x He and Plaintiff used a substantial quantity of drugs during this time period which affected both of their memories. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. H at 129-32 (describing their daily use of “weed,” their joint regular use of “Xanax,” as well as use of cocaine, Xanax, Ecstasy and acid). x Jeffrey Epstein is the one who called him and asked him to bring other females to give massages. Id. at 104-107. In particular, Mr. Figueroa denied that Ms. Maxwell ever asked him to bring a girl to Jeffrey: Q: Did Jeffrey call you directly about getting more girls? A: Yes. Q: On the phone? A: uh-huh (affirmative) Q: What did he say? A: He was ju st asking me if I had any other girls that wanted to come work… Q: And did he pay – he paid you personally? A: Yeah. He handed me $200 for every girl that I walked in that door, whether they did stuff with him or not. Q: In cash? A: Cash. Q: Did you ever get paid by Ms. Maxwell for that? A: No. Q: Did you ever bring a girl to Ms. Maxwell? A: No. Q: Did Ms. Maxwell ever call you and ask you to bring a girl to her? A: No. Q: Did Ms. Maxwell ever call you and ask you to bring a girl to Jeffrey? Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 2723A: No. Id. at 106-07. xHe did not have any discussions with thes e females (who were adult) about what was entailed with the job other than massages. Id.at 104-105. xLater in his testimony, upon leading questions from Mr. Edwards, Mr. Figueroa committed a complete about-face: Q: Would Ghislaine Maxwell call you? A: I think she might have actually called me once or twice. I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure she did…. Q: …What did you say? What did she say? A: She would just ask me if I ha d anybody lined up, so…..for Jeffrey. xMr. Figueroa testified that he was arrested for grand theft the same night that he dropped Plaintiff off to go to Thailand, he served time, and only recently had his rights restored. Id. at 67-69. Rinaldo Rizzo. Mr. Rizzo was a butler for Mr. Glenn and Dr. Eva Dubin at their home in upstate New York. In addition to his history of litigation against the Dubins and his admitted hope to receive compensation from his testimony, hi s deposition is so palpably incredible as to be potentially sanctionable. Pagliuca Decl., Ex. I at 11. In any event, none of Mr. Rizzo’s testimony related to Ms. Maxwell’s participation in massages, sex with underage minors, or sex with adults, and t hus is further irrelevant to the issues presented by the Motion. CONCLUSION Because Ms. Maxwell fully answered all questions within the Court’s Order (and many that were not) at her continued deposition, she respectfully requests the Co urt deny Plaintiff’s -Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 2724 Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal. Further, because Plaintiff brought this Motion without a valid basis to assert that she refused to answer any question that was (a) within this Court’s Order and (b) not already responded to either at her first deposition or during this deposition, Ms. Maxwell requests that the fees and costs associated with defending this Motion be imposed on Plaintiff, her counsel or both. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca ( pro hac vice) HADDON , MORGAN AND FOREMAN , P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 lmenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 2725 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 8, 2016, I electronically served Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce the Court’s Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER , LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfllp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad@pathtojustice.com J. Stanley Pottinger 49 Twin Lakes Rd. South Salem, NY 10 590 StanPottinger@aol.com /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-26 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 27EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 6*,8))5( 96 0$;:(// 'HSRVLWLRQ 9,5*,1,$*,8))5(  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBB $JUHQ%ODQGR&RXUW5HSRUWLQJ 9LGHR,QF WK6WUHHW6XLWH 'HQYHU&RORUDGR Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1327-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 63DJH 1-DQXDU\WK" 2$$WWKHYHU\WRSRIWKHSDJHLWVD\V 3-DQXDU\VW 447KHGDWHLWZDVILOHG,VWKHUHDGDWH 5MXVWDERYHWKHVLJQDWXUHEORFN" 6$2K\HVVRUU\